Carbon freak show

jf says:

02:17pm | 16/08/11

You’re a lying.

nossy says:

02:19pm | 16/08/11

Richard M - have a look at this video Richard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

David S says:

02:24pm | 16/08/11

A ‘lie’ implies intent.  Let’s get real.  She meant what she said when she said it.  Either prove that she intended the opposite of what she said, or stop saying it was a lie.  It devalues our language and the credibility of any person using the word.

David S says:

02:29pm | 16/08/11

Nossy, check this out from around 4.35:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OooHdU0wa-s

Martin says:

02:30pm | 16/08/11

We’ve had this discussion before Richard. She did lie. Your distorted Labor slanted perception will not allow your brain to comprehend this fact. Seriously, you Labor chaps really do yourselves no favours in the credibility department when you attempt to distort the truth like this.

max headroom says:

02:32pm | 16/08/11

Swan the day before Julia’s lie, said the opposition was fear mongering about a carbon tax and if labor was re elected to government “there would be no carbon tax guaranteed!

Against the Man says:

02:33pm | 16/08/11

Juliar lied, to get the job and collect a hefty pension.

The majority KNOWS she lies all the time

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lie_with_another_lie/

http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/carbon-tax/julia-gillard-confronted-over-carbon-tax-lie/

Liars says:

02:33pm | 16/08/11

RIchard, of course you’re right by any logical measure. The stupid “Juliar” issue is unrelated to any perceived “lie” - if people were really upset by “lies” they would be apolplectic at Abbott’s performance just about every day - heck, he even admitted he is a liar - but for some reason the same people will see this as evidence of his honesty - irony much?)

Bruce says:

02:35pm | 16/08/11

Richard: There will be NO carbon tax under a government I leed. Supported by a similar statement by wayne swan. She ‘lied’ to the Australia public and supported by wayne swan. It does not get any clearer or simpler than that. Any other explaination is just an excuse to justify juliar’s 5 headed government election result.

Bob says:

02:35pm | 16/08/11

Julia Gillard’s lie, mis-statement, fib, unforeseen circumstances, mistake, falsehood - call it what you will - wasn’t just any old broken political promise.
It was the mechanism that allowed Labor to scrape over the line last August.
A fair few voters in marginal Labor seats would have been reassured enough by Gillard’s vow to overcome their urge to vote for the opposition.
Carbon pricing is a vote killer, as the defunct NSW Labor found polling in 20 marginal seats found only 25 per cent of voters saw the carbon tax as about the environment and 51 per cent saw it as a cost-of-living issue.
“What I said before the election I can’t unsay now,” Gillard says..Except that’s not what she told Kevin Rudd when he was PM. Yes, Gillard knew how toxic the issue was in the electorate particularly in marginal seats. And that is why she deliberately and calculatingly ruled out a carbon tax.

Gillard made Bob Brown the powerbroker of this parliament, in control in both Houses.But it didn’t have to be that way. She could have told Brown that she could not break her word to the electorate.
She could have called his bluff. As if Brown ever would have made Tony Abbott prime minister, anyway.
The Greens would be placed in the same dustbin the Democrats inhabit.
Gillard didn’t just break her promise; she sold the nation’s soul to the Greens and allowed them to become the cuckoo in Labor’s nest. She alienated Labor’s traditional working, aspirational base and sent Australia’s oldest and proudest party into a death spiral.

Tasmanian incomes are in a hole because the Greens have stifled every productive industry for decades, from hydroelectric power to forestry.
Now they are going to do to Australia what they did to Tasmania. This is why Gillard’s broken promise matters.

Reg says:

02:36pm | 16/08/11

Really, she’s either a liar or she is weak… she either deliberately intended to deceive the public or is too weak to stand up to the Greens to honour her pre-election word.

Either way it’s not a good look.

Personally I’d prefer her to be a liar, I can’t stand gutless people.

AdamC says:

02:41pm | 16/08/11

Richard M, I am going to proceed on the basis that you are serious. (Though, Richard, it is a remarkably silly comment.) There are actually two possibilities in relation to Gillard’s no carbon tax pledge.

The first is that she sincerely meant it at the time but, in order to cling to power, venally discarded it when she thought she could get away with it because of the hung parliament.

The second is that she never intended to keep her word and would have always brought in an ETS or carbon tax after the election. (Oddly, you seem to think this is what happened. You also seem to think this is not lying. Those are mutually exclusive beliefs.)

In any event, the first possibility is more likely than the second, but I am not sure that it is any better. And, regarding your it’s not a lie, it’s merely a ‘broken promise’ argument, th at is an exercise in semantics at best. Do honest people habitually break major promises?

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:42pm | 16/08/11

Almost as good as John Howard’s Ministerial Code of Conduct which could be used as toilet paper…..

nossy says:

02:43pm | 16/08/11

@Against the Man - lovely fishing ATM - DP must get on the hook soon!  hahhha

TimB says:

02:43pm | 16/08/11

” If Labour had won a majority, there would not have been a carbon tax, because the Government would have proceeded straight to a Emissions Trading Scheme, rather than proceeding via a 3-year tax”

Then she still would have been lying.

The ETS wasn’t going to come in for years. She was going to go back to the drawing board and build a consensus first. Remember the Citizen’s Assembly?

@ David, there was intent. Intent to calm the electorate in an effort to stop them from swinging their vote to the Coalition.

And the proof is in the fact that she chose to break her word after the election. No-one forced her to, she didn’t have to, and she did it anyway. That says it all IMO.

nossy says:

02:51pm | 16/08/11

@David S - yes well Abbott in 2009 supported a Carbon Tax and an ETS - so that comes as no surprise David. However Howard, when in power, proposed an ETS but only in concert with the rest of the world doing the same - which its not. Putting it crudely David, Gillard is “pissing in the wind” with this tax!

David S says:

02:54pm | 16/08/11

Who said this?

“If the simple challenge is to put a price on carbon, if you were to put a carbon tax on energy consumption, if you were to put a carbon tax on fuel consumption, and if you were then to rebate the tax to the people who paid if those who paid it, you would have raised the price of carbon, you would have avoided an increase in the overall tax burden and you would have gone down a path that most people understand.”

Tony Abbott

Glenn says:

02:58pm | 16/08/11

A broken promise is one that was made with good intentions but due to failure of strength or integrity that promise is broken.

A lie is an outright boldfaced deception, where the person never meant a word they said and said what they needed to in order to pacify you or to cover their arse.

Either way it demonstrates poor Leadership.

Anyway the nation will decide at the next election, the Carbon Tax could do to Labor/Greens what work choices did to Howard. Only time will tell.

RealCarbon says:

03:02pm | 16/08/11

Gillard DID LIE. She either lied when she made the empty promise… or she lied when she tried to spin the ‘change of mind’ by saying it was consistent with her election promise.

The later she has since backed away from, gone back to and backed away from again.

Irrespective. Gillard didn’t even try to fight to keep her promise. She just back downed to keep power a few days later.

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:02pm | 16/08/11

All politicians lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs
Now you can say that John Howard went to an election with a GST and thus a mandate, but is a matter of public record that after the 1993 election, John Howard publicly declared that the GST would never ever be Liberal Party policy again. That sir, was a lie pure and simple.

Mike says:

03:03pm | 16/08/11

And she’d be full-forward for the Dogs before contesting the leadership of the ALP ... and, as we know the WikiLeaks, the US govt knew well before she said that of her intentions. She is incapable of telling the truth. When Howard changed his mind about the GST, he went to the electorate to get a mandate on the Tax because he has made a similar promise prior to his first election.

papachango says:

03:16pm | 16/08/11

If she’d said “i promise not to intoduce a carbon tax’ you might have had a point about it being a broken promise, but she didn’t.

She said categorically ‘there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’. She’s now introducing one, so it’s a barefaced LIE. Very simple.

The only wiggle room is if she admits she’d not leading the government and Bob Brown is, which is even worse.

Brad says:

03:19pm | 16/08/11

Hey Richard,  If it walks like a duck!

Nafe says:

03:22pm | 16/08/11

David S, Well done, you have found Tony Abbott explain a Carbon tax, Thumbs up to you.

I must ave missed the part where he said he supported such a tax.

fml says:

03:28pm | 16/08/11

She changed her mind, abott does it all the time when he gaffs.

Skip says:

03:35pm | 16/08/11

For goodness sake shut up as she did lie and she is a liar.  She could not lie straight in bed.  I suppose you are part of the very small percentage that voted for her.

Yuri says:

03:55pm | 16/08/11

Davis S: Note that Abbott suggests a tax on energy/fuel consumption with rebates available to those who pay. This is nothing like the production tax of the government where households are compensated based on their income.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:57pm | 16/08/11

How do you know that Dullard didn’t have intent to lie when making the statement about the carbon tax - what about her lie on radio about her involvement with the Socialist Forum - this goes to show that the woman will blatantly lie when she needs to - what about their lies about how good the economy is at the moment -

poa says:

04:05pm | 16/08/11

Given that Gillard did say “There will be no carbon tax etc”...she faced a choice.
Be honest and not form government, or form government and break a promise.
She chose the lie.
Frankly ALP apologists must be the dumbest most morally dodgy life forms on the planet to even try and argue…“Julia didn’t lie!”

David S says:

04:22pm | 16/08/11

Abbott was for the carbon tax before he was against it.
Total flip flop.
He does admit that he doesn’t always tell the “gospel truth”.
And all the chants of “liar” at Gillard when she did no such thing.
What a shame.

Loxy says:

04:25pm | 16/08/11

I agree Richard that Julia didn’t lie, she just ended up in circumstances (i.e. minority government) that she didn’t foresee prior to the election.

Honestly though who cares! Newsflash people – all politicians lie! Howard told a massive porky with his promise not to introduce the GST, we didn’t get a re-election over that broken promise and the world didn’t end. I’m so sick and tired of hearing about this tax. My hubby and I will be some of the hardest hit from the tax with no compensation and you don’t hear us complaining.

And no I’m not a labour hack, I’m a proud swinging voter and if the liberals still had Turnbull as their leader they would have got my vote next election. Alas, as they are putting forward that nutcase Abbott, whose madness was further evidenced by the ridiculous rally, I’ve got no choice but to vote Labour next election.

fml says:

04:25pm | 16/08/11

MadKat,

the economy is doing pretty well to be honest.

Poa, so abbott is going to be in trouble then if he gets in, the number of things he says to all sorts, and the contradictory nature of them all, you are going to have a helluva time defending.

dovif says:

05:00pm | 16/08/11

Richard M

If I said I would not cross the road, and then crossed the road.

That makes my first statement a lie.

You can know Gillard is a Liar, because when everyone calls her a liar. She does not have a come back. This is because she lied at the election to get elected

Which make her a liar

Allan says:

05:07pm | 16/08/11

There will be NO CARBON TAX under a government I lead -
Sounds like a LIE, looks like a LIE - it’s a LIE all right - she’ll cling on to anything to stay in power.
As for Sharwood’s statement about calls for elections being “sooky” - perhaps when his kids are having to pay the massive debt this government is racking up he might reconsider his choice of words

MadKat of Melbourne says:

05:08pm | 16/08/11

@ fml

to be honest the economy isn’t doing well - where did you get your economics degree from - I got my masters from melbourne university -

papachango says:

05:12pm | 16/08/11

@Loxy - get your facts straight. Actually there WAS an election after Howard changed his mind about declaring there’d never ever be a GST, and Howard was relected, so he actually had a mandate for introducing the GST.

Of course it was silly of Howard to make a categorical statement like that, but he at least had the decency to put it to the people before implementing it. Unlike Gillard who lies and puts an unpopular tax in without any election.

fml says:

05:27pm | 16/08/11

Yep sure you did, i got my phd from <insert university here>

Please inform us why o’wise one.

David S says:

05:46pm | 16/08/11

Melbourne University standards must be slipping.
5% unemployment, and 3% inflation is pretty darn good.

JohnB says:

05:48pm | 16/08/11

She’s a liar Richard M.

Allan says:

05:48pm | 16/08/11

@ Loxy says “Alas, as they are putting forward that nutcase Abbott, whose madness was further evidenced by the ridiculous rally, I’ve got no choice but to vote Labour next election. “

I’m amazed at how some people choose where their vote will go. They spout on about policies and how the Labour are better for the country and then go an make a statement like the one shown above.
Surely someone with a modicum of intellect will vote based on policies rather than personalities….

But wait, perhaps that is why we have the government we have now.

Amused says:

05:59pm | 16/08/11

@papachango, so Howard was allowed to change his mind but when Gillard does the same, it was a lie? Hahahahaha

Chris L says:

06:19pm | 16/08/11

Even Andrew Bolt is on the record pointing out that a Labor win would mean a Carbon Price. He pointed it out on the eve of the election.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/gillard_wont_rule_out_jacking_up_power_prices/

Peter Francis says:

06:32pm | 16/08/11

For gods sake she did damn well lie and has been lying ever since

KJBeinke says:

06:43pm | 16/08/11

So there is a dispute as to whether Julia is a liar or not for saying there will be no carbon tax under a government led by her.  At the time of the statement it may well have been her intention not to have a carbon tax. 
The fact she has changed her mind is most dishonourable.  If she had any shred of integrity, she would put it to the people as an election policy like the Liberals did for the GST.  (Yes they put it to the people twice.  John Hewson and Later John Howard who won the election with more seats but not the two part preferred vote - (49% v 51%).
Julias decision was dishonourable - so liar or dishonourable, take your pick.  You cannot say one thing, win the election (with a minority) and then go back on your word.

John the Zombie says:

08:16pm | 16/08/11

Bollocks Richard. She knew when she made these comments that she would have to deal with the greens. Remember the preference deals they gave each other. You think at that point when she was making the deal with them for preferences they would of told her what they expected in return.

You have also forgotten the other lie she stated. Remember the reason she gave for not reopening the refugee centre on Naru. It went something like this. I will not allow refugees to be sent to a country for proccessing that has not signed the UN agreement on Human rights but did she not do a deal with Malaysia who is not a signatory. Also did she not say she would sign the deal unless the UN approved it. last I heard they were squarely against it and had not given no such approval to.

Against the Man says:

08:18pm | 16/08/11

If you are going to bring Howard into this debate than do so after Gillard wins an election and is in office for at least 8 years, till then it makes you like a sad, pathetic ALP zombie

Juliar is a liar! Deal with it!

Michael says:

08:24pm | 16/08/11

Richard, I agree that the PM was sincere when making that statement.  At the time it was not a lie.  Following the election she agreed to a carbon tax policy in order to form a coalition Government with the Greens.  There is no mandate for this policy and the Government should seek a mandate at the next election.

John the Zombie says:

08:24pm | 16/08/11

Amused what did Howard do when he changed his mind? He went to an election. So if you want to use that line then shouldnt Julia Gillard go to an eletion since she changed her mind, something you acknowledge.

jg says:

09:07pm | 16/08/11

Did not lie?

Um, which bit of ‘there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’ did you not understand?

2325Dave says:

09:50pm | 16/08/11

John Howard had the courage to take the GST to an election. Will Ju-liar Gillard show the same intestinal fortitude? Or does she reject democratic principals?

The Colonel says:

10:39pm | 16/08/11

To the person who said “If I said I would not cross the road, and then crossed the road. That makes my first statement a lie”. That’s just plain wrong.

Nothing can create a lie after the fact. If you intended not to cross the road when you made the statement, you did not lie. Period.

Your statement turned out to be incorrect, but it doesn’t make you a liar.

DC says:

11:27pm | 16/08/11

@Martin:

If Gillard lied, then Abbott has lied every single time he’s opened his mouth.

So, why do you tolerate the lies from Tony Abbott, but not Gillard?

Or has politics rattled your brain that you can’t see the deceit in someone because they happen to be in the Liberal Party?

Fact is, circumstances changed.

Tony Abbott has had more positions on the Carbon Tax/ETS than there are positions in the Karma Sutra.

So, by your definition you also must admit that Tony Abbott is a liar.

Thank you.

JR says:

12:30am | 17/08/11

RichardM is correct, she didn’t lie. It’s called a backflip, acrobatics or gymnastics if you prefer. Although much less entertaining!
Or to put a harsher spin on it, it’s also called being a sell out.

I doubt Ms Gillard was happy about doing such a backflip. But, don’t let the political spin fool you; there wass no nobility in her decision. It wasn’t due to any sense of environmental concern. There was no epiphany that came to her since making those televised comments, which were also backed up by Mr “Hysterically Innaccurrate” Swann.

The change came from desperation.

Bob Brown’s desperation for a Carbon Tax meant he would not support a Labor Government, unless they supported the Greens quest for a Carbon Tax.

Gillard’s desperation to hold onto power (possibly also the quest to be Australia’s first elected female PM, though we can dispute the elected part) meant she was held to ransom on this issue, especially since at the time (according to polls) it seemed that Abbott would win a fresh election.

Personally, I’m quite disappointed in both Labor and the Greens. It is quite possibly they may have set back Environmental Action Policy in Australia may years. I believe this, mainly because trying to force something on people creates resentment and many (myself included) will likely be voting against both Green/Labor parties at the next election for spiteful reasons.

It this does occur en masse, then Abbott will win the next election and possibly rescind any carbon tax in place. Which would then be put on the backburner as a political hot potato for a while, a very real possibility.

James In Footscray says:

01:00am | 17/08/11

Saying you won’t do something, then doing it, is not a lie. Great. Thanks Richard M!  Love it. Cheers

Disillusioned says:

10:29am | 17/08/11

In case you missed the bit on TV, this is her EXACT line.
“There wull be NO Carbon Tax under the Government I lead.”
What do you think she meant by that?
It’s not a Lie, if she is not Leading the Government, Ok then, it’s quite clear she’s not Leading the Government. But she shouldn’t be travelling all over Australia telling everyone she’s the Prime Mininster then, because that’s just Fraud. So which is it?

Martin says:

10:40am | 17/08/11

@DC, Labor nong posting nonsense at close to midnight.
Look, either you’ve been on the drink or you have been consuming the wacky tabbacy to come up with that gem of absolute Laborspeak. That logic might cut it with your monosyllabilic mates at Labor HQ, but anyone with a brain just thinks you are a dill.

Brian Taylor says:

11:05am | 17/08/11

Shane From Melbourne
why do you and the other labor sooks keep bringing up the GST and john Howard when the story was about the carbon Tax?
At least “Honst John” took the GST to an election, more than could be said about the lying Gillard Govt.

Simonious says:

01:13pm | 17/08/11

Richard in forming a government with he greens/ind she knew there and then she would have to break her promise on “there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead”. if she didnt want to break her promise and not be called a liar then she shouldnt have formed a government. Another view would be that she realised that she ‘really” wouldnt be leading a government and that Bob Brown would so she in her own mind she probably thinks she has not lied.

B says:

06:50am | 18/08/11

She lied.  Plain and simple.  How can you miss the definition?

Check out one of the definitions of lying.  You cant just pick the definition you want to apply.  They all apply.

lie
1 ? ?[lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
verb (used without object)
5.
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.
to express what is false; convey a false impression.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

How was what she said not an “inaccurate or false statement”?

VMF073 says:

08:49am | 18/08/11

The idea that a broken promise is a lie ends with John Howard’s Never Ever GST

And for the record, a majority voted against it at an election (very selective with what the people want in the Coalition)

She believed it when she said it, so it wasn’t a lie, but she had to react to changed circumstnaces.

And hey you Liberal voting nutters would know about that, wouldn’t you -  it’s the changed circumstances for example (plus bare faced dishonesty, shallow opportunism and shameless populism) that has Tony Abbott simultaneously claiming:

-It’s Absolute Crap
-It’s real, but we didn’t do it
-It’s real, we may have done some of it, but so what
-It’s real but Carbon isn’t a pollutant (WTF???)
-We don’t need a Carbon Tax
-We will spend your Tax Dollars on a useless Carbon Policy (Making it a Carbon Tax, dumbasses) 
-Our Economists have priced our announcements
-Our economists haven’t priced our policies
-Who cares what Economists think anyway
-What’s a policy

The idea that the Carbon Tax “lie” allowed Gillard to scrape home is a Giant wank - Tony Abbott’s gaping hole in costings (that turned out to have never been costed) and his peurile attempt to bribe Andrew Wilkie are what allowed Julia Gillard to “scrape home (You have dodgy memories just like Abbott….)

Fact iis that most of what has transpired has been thanks to the idiotic redneck antics of Tony Abbott - including the Carbon Tax.

A deal was done that was far less than the Greens wanted that would have been much less than is happening now, but Phoney Tony played wrecking ball politics and look what happened…..

As for demanding a plebiscite, Given that Abbott already said he wouldn’t abide by it if it went against him, it’s just another shallow stunt for the mindless idiots who follow him and for the Walking frame crowd who listen to Alan Jones - the freak show who appeared in Canberra reminding the rest of us of what total nutters make up Abbott’s fan base.

JR says:

07:34pm | 18/08/11

@VMF073

Regarding your attack on John Howard and the GST he brought in; well it’s similar, but vastly different to the Gillard debacle.

Howard changed his mind for whatever reason, and clearly and honestly stated his position going into the next election & the Coalition government still won the majority of the seats, allowing them to be returned for another term in government. I never liked Howard, but I respected his courage for giving us an opportunity to kick him out back then.

Gillard stated a position, but being desperate to hold onto government, she had to deal with the Greens & agree to bring in a Carbon Tax in exchange for their support. Now she’ll push ahead to implement the Carbon Tax and hope that things have calmed down enough come next election day.
The honorable thing would be to fully develop the policy and have it ready to announce for the next election and be prepared to go down with the ship should the vote not go her way.

I do also like the “Changed Circumstances” line!
What are those changed circumstances? Desperation?

Regarding scraping home; Katter wasn’t going to support a Labor government, so Gillard’s backflip on Carbon Tax was what got her the Greens’ support and back in government. Anything you or I say about how other people other than ourselves would have voted, had Gillard stated she was going to implement a Carbon Tax, is pure speculation.

Regarding a plebiscite, well a plebiscite is actually a non-binding vote to inform of the voters’ view on particular topic(s). Anyway, you must think about this in the perspective that Abbot is not in government, so it really doesn’t hold relevance to him in that respect. And if he were to win the next election and become PM, well that would be on the basis of many things including is opposition to a Carbon Tax. So we would, if Abbot were elected, be voting for his position on a Carbon Tax, which is no Carbon Tax.

By the way, I don’t like Tony Abbott & i’m not a “nutter”, but I will vote to oust the Labor government partly because I can’t trust what they say, because they’re being held to ransom by others. It’s a shame because Gillard is the reason so many will vote for Abbott come next election.

Elphaba says:

02:33pm | 16/08/11

@fairs, my point on the ‘who cares’ was more Ant saying they’re a poor representative for opponents againt the carbon tax, when the supporters are not much better.

They’re a lot alike, because a certain type of person goes to a protest rally, not a certain side of the coin.

fairsfair says:

02:48pm | 16/08/11

But if they didn’t put him up when they did Ant his walk would have been pointless as he would have missed being the subject of all the rushed stories (like this one). He probably only just arrived and perhaps he was keen to get up there ASAP, he is clearly passionate about his message - passionate enough to walk a couple hundred kays.

I’m sorry Ant, it sounds like a petty jibe at the clothes people were wearing over their message. It wasn’t grade 7 school captain elections for god sake.

I agree with you Elphaba, I have just as much respect for the “feral hippies” Tim suggests above. They are more alike than they are dissimilar, irrespective of their message.

Lisa H. says:

06:16pm | 16/08/11

Yeah, have to confess, thought this article was a little wierd, simply because every protest I’ve ever been to - and I’ve been to lots, (education funding rallies to anti-logging to reclaim the night etc etc), all so-called Left based rallies, and all just chokkas with ratbags.

To complain about the ‘type’ of people that go to rallies seems a little… well, stereotypically ‘right wing old mannish’ to me.

If a stereotypically right wing commentator wrote from this angle, he’d be castigated as fascist.

Do lefties think only they have the natural moral right to hold rallies? Because they don’t attract a better behaved crowd, better organisers or better speakers.

Michael says:

08:11am | 17/08/11

Ant is one of the lefty opinion writers on the punch, it’s not an easy position to be in any more which is why the hypocrisy is becomming more and more evident and the attacks have gone cyclic.

I can hardly wait for Tory to offer up some juicy unbiased political opinions.

Notvelty says:

09:25am | 17/08/11

Three cheers.  Thoroughly sick of the partisan rubbish.

I’m wondering if Ant, also, has only been here for two weeks and therefore hasn’t had time to write about GetUp.

Jez says:

02:51pm | 16/08/11

Did you read the same article from start to finish or just the article title?

Mark says:

04:06pm | 16/08/11

Jez, did you?? You will see Ant reference Liberal supporters and their political stance with substantial bias and contempt many times throughout the article. 
“The endless sooky calls for a new election.”
“Indeed, it was pretty much a de facto Liberal party campaign launch. Minus the policies of course, but then who needs policies when you can harp on and on and about THAT REALLY BIG LIE.”

Pretty much the only unbiased paragraph in the whole article is…
“And you know what? That’s a shame. Because there are plenty of mild-mannered opponents of this tax who deserve much, much more level-headed representation.”

Is that where you got your judgement from?? The last line? Was it a bit too much for you to comprehend a whole article worth of writing, and then be able to generate a logical, well thought out argument?? It’s ok, you aren’t alone, there is, apparently, just less than 10 million labour supporters in this country so your ignorance is widely shared and your position commonly appreciated. Congratulations

Tom says:

08:53am | 17/08/11

9. Using Cate Blanchette.
10. Using Michael Caton.
11. Using the phoney UK power station backdrop.
12. Using Al Gore

13. Hypocrital articles like this one.

Freeman says:

02:20pm | 16/08/11

Yep,

this movement must be quickly quashed.

Anarchist Carnivore says:

02:31pm | 16/08/11

No.. just screamingly obvious conclusions from the cartoon show rage-gasm that was spewed up.

Honestly.. Ant’s last point is correct - people with clear heads who have misgivings on the issue are being sidelined and tarred with the same black, inky, oil-soaked brush as this gaggle of abbot-sponsored (and yes, his office did directly sponsor the event via his parliamentary secretary) empty headed screamers.

Abbott should be the one getting worried… by playing to the choir he’s not noticing a lot of the general congregation walking away.

Geez... says:

05:22pm | 16/08/11

What’s the chance of Big Mal having another one out before days end…just save your comments so you cut & paste later on.

Misunderstood says:

02:31pm | 16/08/11

Right, because the point of being a journalist is to always write things people agree with.

Good article Mr Sharwood, keep it up.

Lapun says:

02:53pm | 16/08/11

@Misunderstood - I don’t always agree with Ant on Sport either, but at least I appreciate his comments as perhaps provocative, but fair.

Peers Accumen says:

04:15pm | 16/08/11

I always thought News Ltd was left leaning commie institution.

Brian Taylor says:

11:23am | 17/08/11

@ Horse, banner that said, “Juliar. Bob Brown’s Bitch.”
So? someone finally worked out just what use Julia Gillard was.
Believe me, there’s been far worse said about John Howard and Abbott or would you care to disagree?

max headroom says:

02:36pm | 16/08/11

What! do remember the union rallys with banners calling Howard hitler and worse like baby killer. up to today the labor web site had comments linking Abbott to hitler, it was pointed out to them and removed.

Horse says:

02:55pm | 16/08/11

those unions were not a major political leader like Abbott. The man is a show-pony. Be gone.

LC says:

03:00pm | 16/08/11

Will you now tut-tut Mr. Brown and Mr. Combet for their participation at political protests which turned violent?

No? What a hypocrite…

MadKat of Melbourne says:

04:38pm | 16/08/11

Oh please Horse - unions not major political leaders - everyone knows they run the Labor Party and sponsor ministers up through the ranks - 

And what about Combet storming parliament and no apologising for it or where he calls people exercising their democratic right to protest as extremists.

And Bob Brown at the protest in 2000 about the World Trade Forum outside the Crown Casino where police were sent to hospital and politicians were held prisoner in their cars or where he addressed a protest that later stormed Parliament House, smashed down the doors, ransacked the gift shop causing hundreds of thousands of dollars damage and left people bloodied and injured. Farmer Brown didn’t apologise for either.

Or even where Federal MP for Bendigo Steve Gibbons has been caught on social media website twitter comparing anti-carbon tax protesters to the notorious Ku Klux Klan. The list goes on and on ....

And why is this behaviour ok from the thugs on the Left? Or to call protestors a Carbon Freakshow? Because it’s OK when the target is on the Right of politics.

And there you go Anthony Sharwood - the left ain’t so pretty - didn’t see anyone storming parliament today, no blood, no violence, no politicians held prisoner in their cars - get out of your ivory tower -

Horse says:

04:39pm | 16/08/11

LS,
probably - depends on the circumstance and what banner they stood in front of.

Chris L says:

06:26pm | 16/08/11

I have to agree with Max (probably first time). So many protests from the left wing have been as or more hysterical and aimless. Must be difficult to control a mob.

Personally I’m saving my own protest (again ISP filtering) for the next election.

Geez... says:

04:58pm | 16/08/11

Coalition Desperate?.....with a 58/44 lead in the polls. Don’t thins so. Julia at QT inside parliment house today thats what what they call desperate.

Tom says:

12:48pm | 17/08/11

Knemon, Joyce picked the USA financial concerns. Meanwhile Swan smirked away like the typical robotic ALP flatheaded fool he is and sniggered at him. Are you sure you feel comfortable in those ranks with Swan?

Roobs says:

04:57pm | 16/08/11

The same might be said about the parochial dinosaurs that write comments like yours, Marty.  I don’t really see how gay marriage threatens “traditionalists” such as yourself, but I’m glad it does, as it is inevitable.

Roobs says:

04:57pm | 16/08/11

The same might be said about the parochial dinosaurs that write comments like yours, Marty.  I don’t really see how gay marriage threatens “traditionalists” such as yourself, but I’m glad it does, as it is inevitable.

Dee says:

05:42pm | 16/08/11

RyaN why do you bully people all the time? Why do you have to make people feel bad about themselves. Is this what the Liberal party is about? I thought the punch was about debate but all I can see is bullying at its highest level.

RyaN says:

07:46pm | 16/08/11

@Dee: me, bullying someone?? Where? I am happy to be called on bullying if I am.

VVS says:

02:40pm | 16/08/11

So Abbott’s not to expect a Christmas card from you this year…?

max headroom says:

02:41pm | 16/08/11

“there will be no carbon tax under any government i lead.” correct bob brown and the 3 amigos now leads the government

Max, says:

02:49pm | 16/08/11

Who is the fool here,  it is his job as OPPOSITION leader to oppose.  Even a welded on Labor voter should understand that.  We have a de-facto PM so why not a de-facto campaign launch?  As for Tony, he has at least 2 degrees, one in Economics, was a Rhodes Scholar so I guess you may be mistaken when you called him a fool.  Policies of all parties in opposition are traditionally released just before an election, two years to go!  As to hate - words fail me -  8-(

Nafe says:

03:05pm | 16/08/11

Simon, Why does an opposition need policies 2 years out from an election? Where were Kevin Rudds 2 years out? Where were John Howards 2 years out? Didn’t happen buddy.

PTom says:

03:38pm | 16/08/11

Max,
He calls himself the alternative PM and he is always calling for a election. Yet this oxford rhodes scholar shows again and again he is not fit nor ready to lead this country.

RyaN says:

03:42pm | 16/08/11

@Simon: here you go http://liberal.org.au/policies now you are just that little bit better edumacated.
No need to thank me mate, I know you feel like a goose already so its implied.

Simon says:

04:28pm | 16/08/11

lol.
Max - I know its his job to oppose. I am not implying he shouldnt oppose. Having ‘at least 2 degrees’ doesnt make him intelligent, and it certainly doesnt make him a better choice for PM. And I am NOT a labor voter

Nafe - An opposition (or any party) DOESNT need policies released 2 years before an election. I never said they did…

And Ryan - thanks for the policies link. I dont feel like a goose at all because no one has understood what I meant by my previous post.

To clarify - Tony Abbott does not sell himself as a better alternative for PM. When he speaks at any conference, campaign etc, he attacks Labors policies and Julia Gillard. Thats it. I have never heard him say anything constructive. He doesnt say what his policies actually are, all he does is poke holes in the coalition.
His scare campaigns are pathetic and have zero facts.
That is all

RyaN says:

04:42pm | 16/08/11

@Simon: Do explain what part of this I didn’t understand “Since when did any of Tony Abbott’s campaigns have policies?”

You asked the question, I gave you the link, problem solved.

iansand says:

04:54pm | 16/08/11

Perhaps you could explain why Abbott never refers to those policies.

RyaN says:

05:09pm | 16/08/11

@iansand: He does, the media just refuse to show when he does. All part of the left wing media propaganda machine.

VVS says:

02:41pm | 16/08/11

Yeah, but in their defence they are a bunch of losers…

Madkat of Melbourne says:

04:05pm | 16/08/11

haha VVS - great comment !!!!

TimB says:

03:10pm | 16/08/11

“They saw how much damage the rally did to their cause last time….and they did it again.”

What damage would that be? The ALP poll figures are still in freefall.

Hugo says:

03:16pm | 16/08/11

To use an analogy Tim B, its kind a like a football team giving up at half time because their lead is strong enough. We’ve seen the cost of compacancy before haven’t we?

However great the coalition’s poll numbers - they would be better without these of the right side of the map rallies. Especially if they want to think beyond the next two elections and get some more young voter on board.

TimB says:

03:29pm | 16/08/11

...so now the rallies are analogous to “giving up at half time”?

I’m honestly confused by this explanation. Giving up would be doing nothing. The rallies are the exact opposite. This is keping pressure on the government and the issue at the forefront of the electorate’s collective consciousness.

You’re still trying to claim that this is damaging the Coaltion’s position. And you still haven’t provided any proof.

Hugo says:

03:53pm | 16/08/11

Your right Tim B, a better anaolgy would be an own goal in soccer due to complacent defending.

I guess unless the polling companies specifically ask in their next round of questions if the rallies made them less likely to vote Liberal we’ll never know. As I lack the time, inclination and finance to run my own poll I’ll probably never get the evidence. We’ll just have to acknowledge this is my simple opinion that angry people scare away the straights.

TimB says:

04:11pm | 16/08/11

I guess you’re entitled to that opinion Hugo, but I would still contend that the continuing bad poll results for the ALP show that no-one is really being scared away by this.

Hugo says:

04:25pm | 16/08/11

My opinion is that the terrible ALP results reflect terrible ALP performance as well as some anger at the carbon price. I also think there is a large number of people who are oppossed to the carbon tax, but I think the less extremem voices who are oppossed to the tax make better spokespeople for the cause.

With the long view (more than the next election) the LNP would want younger voters for the next couple of decades - so reducing the image of angry baby boomers might help them in the long run.

Dash says:

07:09pm | 16/08/11

He must like the wealth redistribution and his household must be on the list to benefit. He wants my taxes for nothing? And he thinks its ok for Gillard and Swan to mislead the electorate on the eve of last election?

liam says:

12:28pm | 17/08/11

I’m sick of this ‘it won’t make a difference’ argument. Australia has one of the highest per capita emission levels in the world - Three times as high as China’s, and OVER 10 times the size of India’s per capita emissions.

How selfish are we that we should say that we’re allowed to have ridiculously high CO2 emissions output while other poorer countries have to cut down? We have a strong enough economy to be able to reduce emissions, and invest in clean energy, so we have a resposibility to do that.

Feel free to oppose the carbon price on the grounds that you didn’t vote for it, but stay away from these bullshit arguments, because they’re selfish, short sighted and meaningless.

Northern Steve says:

09:21pm | 17/08/11

I voted for Rudd in 2007, and I think that Gillard finally lost my vote when she made it very clear that the carbon tax would have no impact on jobs in the coal industry.  To me, that clearly says either there is no point, or she’s telling porkies.  If it won’t cut down coal mining, it won’t reduce carbon pollution by any significant amount.

Michael says:

11:26pm | 17/08/11

Liam, there are really two reasons why it won’t make a difference. Firstly because the tax won’t actually do much to reduce the carbon output (I.e. The intention to reduce carbon dioxide is not a bad one, just that particular bit of legislation won’t actually do much about it).

The second reason is related to basic statistics. While we have high per capita emissions in Australia, we don’t anywhere near the population, so really on a global scale we don’t count for much (we only account for about 2% of global emissions vs China’s 24% and the US’s 25%).

Rick says:

02:47pm | 16/08/11

Oh Bennie not that tired old line .John Howard DID NOT take the GST to an election In typical sneaky fasion he snuck it in with the help of one Meg Lease(democrats) who has since gone the way of the dino’s

MDG says:

03:01pm | 16/08/11

The people did NOT want the GST, Bennie.  Check the actual results of the 1998 election.  The Labor Party, which fought the election on an anti-GST platform, got the majority of the popular vote.

TimB says:

03:08pm | 16/08/11

Have a look at the 1998 election campaign Rick.

“The election on 3 October 1998 was held six months earlier than required by the Constitution. Prime Minister John Howard made the announcement following the launch of the coalition’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) policy launch and a five-week advertising campaign. The ensuing election was almost entirely dominated by the proposed 10% GST and proposed income tax cuts.”

Any other lies you’d like to throw out?

Nafe says:

03:09pm | 16/08/11

Rick,, Sorry mate After the Election he took the GST to,Labor still didn’t recognise the mandate and opposed the legislation. He then needed Meg Lees to help it through.

All this harping on about tony Abbott opposing, Labor did exactly the same thing in opposition, even worse, even when the coalition had a mandate for the GST, Labor still opposed it.

TheRealDave says:

03:38pm | 16/08/11

Well by your reasoning the Labor Party has a mandate to implement whatever they want!

Back in ‘99 The Libs did NOT have the numbers to get the legislation over the line. They also lost the popular vote across the country - isn’t it lucky they were able to form a coalition with another party huh? But I digress…... They enlisted the support of Meg Lees who killed her own career and political party, remember the Democrats??,  in the process

So now Labor have the numbers which includes the support of independent members and can get its legislation through, despite the Opposition..well…opposing it…. - so whats the bloody problem?!

Does it only suck and be ‘undemocratic’ when its not your Party doing it?

Nothing more than pathetic hypocritical whiners. Grow a set.

Yuri says:

03:44pm | 16/08/11

Exactly, people aren’t sooking or whinging just because they can. Here’s an analogy of what happened for those that don’t get it.

Imagine a law firm that is hiring lawyers and you just graduated lawschool and apply for the job. In the interview it is specifically stated that the position is for a lawyer and you would never be required to get anyone coffee or run errands. Then you get the job, sign a contract, and turn up for your first day only to find that a new partner has been promoted and has decided to make you their personal assistant. Your days are then spent making coffee, photocopying reams of paper and other mundane tasks, all the while watching your dreams of lawyerhood slip through your fingers. If this happened you would rightly be pissed off and have cause to complain - similarly with the Carbon Tax we elected this government on the very specific promise that there will be no carbon tax, then the Greens came into the fold and now it is the Australian economy that we can watch being flushed down the toilet.

Jay Santos says:

04:20pm | 16/08/11

@Rick @MDG

Clearly not students of history.

Put down your wankipedia version of Australian politics and do some reading FFS.

Howard gave the Australian people the opportuntiy to vote on a GST because he changed his mind after the 1996 election.  He sought a mandate and asked the people to decide.  They did at the 1998 election.

But don’t let your version of the facts get in the way of your narrative.

PTom says:

07:10pm | 16/08/11

Jay

Yes, Howard changed his mind after 1996.
From never ever will a GST be Liberal policy again to taking a GST to a election that he did not get 50% of the votes. I guess that was a lie then and not just another non-core promise.

BTW was the GST we voted on the one that we where given?

MDG says:

11:51am | 17/08/11

Jay Santos- did John Howard win a majority of the popular vote in 1998?  The answer is no.  That is a fact.  Therefore any claim to a popular mandate for the GST is either ignorant or a lie.

Northern Steve says:

09:25pm | 17/08/11

So, MDG, Gillard promising to NOT introduce a carbon tax and also not winning the popular vote is a mandate to introduce a carbon tax?  Did you really say that with a straight face?

fml says:

03:38pm | 16/08/11

Being biased is the whole point of having an opinion. Isnt someone calling another a comrade rather biased in it self?

RyaN says:

04:12pm | 16/08/11

@fml: clutching at straws there mate!

Blind Freddy says:

04:57pm | 16/08/11

Your clever (and original) use of Caps Lock is very persuasive and is winning me over to the “other side”. You have really brought something new to the complex debate . . . why hasn’t that been said like THAT before . . . ?

Must resist . . . resist . . . vote julia out now!!!  . . . no, must resist . . . VOTE JULIA OUT NOW!!!  . . . Yes. Yes? . . . No! Must resist Caps Lock . . . (the inner struggle goes on . . . . ) . . . PHEW!

Simonious says:

02:44pm | 17/08/11

LEFTY DEBATING TACTIC NO1: RIDCULE THE MESSENGER NOT THE MESSAGE.

Pete says:

09:04am | 18/08/11

RIGHTY DEBATING TACTIC NO1: RIDICULE THE ATTACKER BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO REAL ARGUMENT

Brian Taylor says:

04:40pm | 17/08/11

Ant calls them “weirdo’s” maybe he should be calling them “The Australian Tea party”
The tea party in the states was formed because they’re sick and tired of their pollies ripping them off, so goes the same here.
I king of like the idea of an Australian Tea Party myself

Andrew Martin says:

04:42pm | 16/08/11

Once again it has to be asked why so many right wing banshees like old Bill here have serious problems with spelling and syntax? 

Protest rallies are predominantly organised and attended by the extreme edges of right or left, depending on the ‘cause’.  One one side you have the Arts students using an anti-globalisation march as a means to behave like headless chooks. Then we have the events of today that see our most poorly educated and easily led being whipped into a frenzy by scaremongers who are dirty that they didn’t get as many votes as they thought they should have.  The end result?  Reasonable debate that sits close to the middle is lost in the noise made by the goons on the fringes.  What we are left with is this whole ‘left vs right’ ideological argument which achieves absolutely nothing, instead of having sensible, robust debate and information sharing on a issue by issue basis.

The ALP and Liberal parties are both seeing their traditional demographics deserting them in the polls.  Self serving and self preserving spivs now walk the halls of power, looking for savants to buy their snake oil.  It’s all about “whatever it takes to get my hands on the crown” nowadays, not what is in the best interest of the nation.  “Another 4 years” replaced the notion of selfless thinking.  And we as a people are stuck with watching our elected officials act in a behaviour more belonging on a Jerry Springer episode, and we are worse off for it.

HappyCynic says:

04:54pm | 16/08/11

And obviously far too many Australians seem to lack basic literacy skills.

Bloody hell, did you not read this article or did you not understand what was being said?  Your comprehension skills make a poo-flinging monkey look like a scholar. 

The entire point of this article is that the people you cite as having genuine concerns about this stupid tax (including myself, I’d like nothing more than to see this tax disappear) are having our voices drowned out and/or ignored by a vitriolic, ignorant, crazy, stupid and illiterate bunch of tools who have nothing more intelligent to to say than “rabble, rabble, rabble”.

What’s even worse is they are being led by the Opposition Leader!!  Why is someone is such an eminent position leading a tiny bunch of crazies instead of engaging and leading the sensible majority?

Super D says:

03:13pm | 16/08/11

You can see all the post slaughter defeat articles already lamenting the critical mistake of not taking the carbon tax to the people.  Frankly I’m a bit over it all.  Next election Labor will get slaughtered, the Department of Climate Change will be emasculated and all of their totalitaria legislation repealed. 

I just hope that the climate cheer squad accept the people’s verdict.

Vader says:

03:17pm | 16/08/11

And how many opinion polls were against Howard during his 11 years? It’s a stupid way to run a country, no one would ever get anything done.

We have an election every 3 years where we get to evaluate the performance of the previous government and the potential ones on offer.

Democracy isn’t decided on whims. And it certainly isn’t about changing government every time conservatives are unhappy.

Chris M says:

03:33pm | 16/08/11

Vader, no one ever called for an early election while Howard or Rudd were serving.  Having won their respective elections fair and square, we accepted the result and waited three years.

In contrast, Gillard cheated her way to an election victory she did not deserve. Having misled the electorate at the last election, she now has a moral obligation to call a new election and spell out exactly what she intends to do. 

Instead she has declared she will take the maximum possible benefit from the misleading impression she created by avoiding another election for as long as possible.  That being the case, the voters will be waiting for her with baseball bats come election day.

PTom says:

04:09pm | 16/08/11

Chris M,
Rubbish Rudd from mid 2009 media and opposition where calling for elections.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-13/abbott-dares-rudd-to-call-early-election/393412

Howard
Had unions calling for a early election in 2007 and in 2003
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s1002918.htm

Chris M says:

04:40pm | 16/08/11

PTOm,

Those links don’t really support your position.  Abbott said he was ready for an early election, which at any rate was due within the next six months and was held four months later.

Vader says:

04:50pm | 16/08/11

@Chris - as PTom has already pointed your claims that this is a new phenomena are rubbish.

As for cheating to an election win. That’s a simplistic, narrow, one sided view of how Gillard formed government post the last election. Or in other words it’s complete bullshit.

Firstly, Abbott had the same opportunity to form government. His failure as a negotiator is his fault. Secondly Gillard did not run on a single issue of “No Carbon Tax”. The childish temper tantrums over what amounts to little more than a broken promise following changed circumstances that will hurt few if anyone and force polluters to pay for polluting is beyond ridiculous.

Much of the faux outrage is an excuse because certain people feel that democracy only works when they get their own way.

In the meantime you have two more years of foot stamping to come up with a sensible argument.

TimB says:

05:43pm | 16/08/11

Ok I;ve got posts going missing all over the board today. Bah

PTom has pointed out nothing

The first link is Kevin Rudd threatening an early election, with Tony calling his bluff. Nothing more.

The second link is simple speculation as to whether Howard was going to go early in 2004. There’s bugger all about the unions or anyone else demanding an early election.

Chris’s point remains correct. Simply telling him that he’s wrong doesn’t change that fact.

Vader says:

08:39pm | 16/08/11

What point? Demanding an election on the basis of opinion polls is ridiculous and a dangerous precedent.

TimB says:

09:58pm | 16/08/11

Saying whatever bullshit you want to convince mug punters to put you into office, then changing it all up afterwards with zero justification sets an equally dangerous precedent.

Vader says:

07:57am | 17/08/11

Abbott has admitted he will say anything to win an argument. Howard broke promises. Maintain the faux rage!

TomZ says:

10:26am | 17/08/11

@Vader, 75% of Australian electorate have looked at what Gillard said and the context in which she said it and have called it a lie.

It was not just part of a policy package. It was the election turning lie. Had Gillard been truthful and said “There could be a carbon tax under a government I lead but at the moment I don’t see it happening.”, Labor would have been flogged. It was nothing other than a despicable lie with the intention of deceiving the electorate.

Even Graham Richardson has conceded the electorate doesn’t trust Labor based on that single point. Vader, don’t you Labor liars have any shame?

Andrew Martin says:

04:50pm | 16/08/11

At least it seems he can spell and choose the correct word.  C’mon man, you only wrote one sentence and you screwed that up!  FAIL.

JOhn says:

03:26pm | 16/08/11

TRY 6000 you must be BLONDE LABOR supporter because you can`t count 2000 totally wrong HE HE HE HE

Chris Smith says:

04:03pm | 16/08/11

There was definately more than 2,000 . . .  7,000 at least - I walked around and fondled - um, I mean counted - them . . . .hic !

Adrian says:

04:05pm | 16/08/11

Bullsh*t John. Everyone is reporting the crowd as being around 2,000.
6,000 would take up a lot more space on the lawns than the vision shows. And make a lot more noise.

To claim the crowd is 3 times larger than is being reported smacks of desperation. You’re not from 2GB, are you?

Jay Santos says:

04:22pm | 16/08/11

The crowd is bigger than the AYCC sewing circle held in Sydney.

RyaN says:

04:37pm | 16/08/11

@Adrian: yes we have heard this pathetic GetUp tactic, after the first protest it was claimed by GetUp that there were about 1000 people there, Ross Greenwood had that moron from GetUp on his show and showed him for being exactly what he is, a barefaced liar, not unlike our esteemed leader.

Now Adrian, considering there were 5000 people confirmed on buses going there, you make a total ass of yourself by claiming something you clearly have no idea about.

If you have an official count then put forward your proof please, tell us who gave you an official count. The most official count I have heard is based on the number of heads booked on the buses. That doesn’t include those that made their own way there. I would say 6000 is a conservative estimate.

Aitch B says:

05:00pm | 16/08/11

The Age reports:

“Police estimates put the crowd at between 5000 and 6000, but organisers said there were up to 10,000 people present.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rally-gives-abbott-rockstar-treatment-20110816-1ivwd.html#ixzz1VAltYIIi

Rose says:

05:15pm | 16/08/11

Whether it was 2000 or 6000 it pales into insignificance compared to the over 1000,000 that protested all around the country against Howard involving us in the unnecessary, illegal war against Iraq. Howard ignored them so I don’t know why this few people would think Gillard needs to listen to their pointless rantings.

Blind Freddy says:

09:24pm | 16/08/11

According to that accountancy firm that do all of the Liberal’s “auditing” there were (enter no. of convenience here) people in attendance.

P.S. God I laughed . . . Angry Anderson . . . Pfft.

TimB says:

04:19pm | 16/08/11

Hmm. My post debunking your own maths appears to have gone missing. Round 2 then.

You’re calculating your figure wrong. You don’t calculate the second increase of 20% soley on the first increase of 40%. You calculate it on the full 140% of the original figure.

Original amount= 100%
First increase (40%)= 1.4 x 100= 140% of original amount
Second Increase (20%)= 1.2 x 140= 168% of original amout.

So if anything the 60% increase is an understatement. The correct figure is 68% increase from the original.

And agree with the need for a new fuel supply. Please get Bob Brown and Julia Gillard to agree to open some nuclear power plants. Cheers.

David says:

11:10am | 17/08/11

Hi Tim,

Regarding “You’re calculating your figure wrong. You don’t calculate the second increase of 20% soley on the first increase of 40%. You calculate it on the full 140% of the original figure”. Why? It depends on the definition of what you are measuring that 20% on which has never been stated categorically in any of the ads - You think it should be measured on the end point - I am saying it could as easily be measured on the start point or even measured on the increase - by not defining it they allow people to assume the worst whilst not being able to be held to account for fearmongering. When I said 20%... I can’t control how you interpret my remark…

I also believe nuclear is an option but tell me, how has Uranium prices been going over the last 10 years? Considering that a lot of countries are building new reactors and Uranium is a relatively scarce resource when all those reactors in China and India come on line what is that going to do to the price of Uranium - changing from one limited fuel to another in demand limited fuel doesn’t quite make sense to me.

TimB says:

02:17pm | 17/08/11

I don’t think Uranium is as scarce as you think. And it’s a lot more efficient than coal, a little goes a long way. It’d easily tide us over until either a) renewables become far more efficient than they are or b) we perfect fusion power. Plus it would keep our economy tiking over as we export the stuff.

Regarding the calculations, you can interpret it how you like, but when one quotes a percentage increase, it’s usually caclulated on the previous total price.  When people say “the price of X rose Y% last year”, Y is never referring to the previous increase it’s always from the full price.

From their figure of 160% though, they seem to have calulated both increases with respect to the original base figure as opposed to rather than the ongoing total as I did (which results in a higher total).
I highly doubt they’re misleading anyone, this is just how percentages work.

fml says:

03:46pm | 16/08/11

The effectiveness is all time relative, like all good things, it takes time and effort.

David S says:

04:50pm | 16/08/11

More “lies”?  This time regarding emissions targets?  You seem to forget that both sides of politics have the same belief that climate change is real, and the same emissions goals.  Except that the coaltion is going to splash $10 billion of cash on polluters. The direct action plan, remember?  You’d need a microscope to find mention of it whereas the tax that you think needs additional scrutiny is shouted at fever pitch.
In fact, what a good idea - a series of Punch columns with scientists explaining exactly how the direct action plan is going to reduce emissions by the amount promised.

Tator says:

08:52pm | 16/08/11

David S,
Consider this for a bit of info,
using Treasury modelling, Professor Henry Ergas calculated that the carbon tax will reduce Australian GDP in the order of somewhere between $890 billion and $1.345 trillion trillion by 2050.
http://treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/chart_table_data/chapter5/chart_5_13.xlsx
for the modelling.

m_14 says:

05:25pm | 16/08/11

Blind Freddy,  when I read what you have to say I imagine you to be faceless.  Oh,  look at that angry ol’ bloke (Blind Freddy) over there, he can’t see, he stands there swearing, abusing, and menacing anyone that tries to help him understand that a circus is running this country.

TimB says:

04:34pm | 16/08/11

Ah the “peer pressure” argument. Genius.

I like your silly death penalty anlogy at the end too. How long ago did we abolish the death penalty? And how many countries still have it? More pertinently can you point to ANY countries who abolished the death penalty because WE did it?

Yeah, we’re a real world leader.

AAAdam says:

12:42am | 17/08/11

Per capita emissions? You have got to be joking. If I even bought into this whole manmade climate change rubbish I’d know that Australia’s “per capita emissions” are irrelevant, only absolute global emissions really matter. And given that absolute global emissions will keep increasing even with a carbon tax in Australia, then this tax is pointless. Hell, even Australia’s absolute emissions will keep increasing under a carbon tax - just check the governments own figures. This tax is pointless and won’t reduce absolute global emissions.

Tom Stops says:

04:58pm | 16/08/11

Learn to spell

Vader says:

08:24pm | 16/08/11

Tom - Get a point.

Sean says:

08:38pm | 16/08/11

Learn to do some research Tom.  I am having all sorts of trouble typing on this board with frequent freezing but I managed to get my point across.  The best you can come back with is learn to spell.  Good for you.  Can’t refute the truth so you attack spelling.  Yet another inbread Aussie who wouldn’t know anymore than he is told.  Look around the world is bigger than Australia and what your hero Tony tells you.

Jay Santos says:

05:01pm | 16/08/11

“...Where was my election on Workchoices??????...”

For those old enough to vote it was held in 2007.

Now, how about that second helping of stupid?

Steve Putnam says:

08:33pm | 16/08/11

@Jay Santos Workchoices was introduced after the 2004 election without Howard breathing a prior word about it. He then spent $100 million advertising it. The 2007 election was the electorate’s first chance to repudiate it which they emphatically did un-seating “Honest John” in the process.
You were stupid to think you could lie about this and get away with it.

Jay Santos says:

10:01pm | 16/08/11

@Steve

I think you should read the thread before you respond and make a fool of yourself.

A double spoonful for you.

Craig says:

10:41pm | 16/08/11

Jay, your upset with Gillard Lying, look at yourself!!!! Howard never gave us the Australian people a vote on workchoices. Typical Right Wing Lies!!!! You have a nerve to bitch about Gillard!!!!!!

Well guess what Jay, you will get your election on the Carbon Tax in 2013

CJ says:

05:00pm | 16/08/11

It’s an opinion site, you silly duffer.

Sceptic says:

05:41pm | 16/08/11

Thanks Captain Obvious

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:09pm | 16/08/11

Yeah, didn’t you know fair and balanced reporting lives at Fox News- at least that’s what bullshit they’re peddling…..

sheesh says:

07:54pm | 16/08/11

Sceptic lamo, dullard. Read the article, he’s on your side, the article is about the rally, not the tax. Limp.

David S says:

05:35pm | 16/08/11

Poor Grover will be shocked and surprised to learn that the coalition believes in climate change and plan to reduce emissions the same as Labor.

KJ says:

07:01pm | 16/08/11

CJ - surely you must be going blind by now

Michael says:

09:43pm | 16/08/11

CJ, to be fully comprehensive you should have included the following,
He said no to the BER,
He said no to a great big new tax which will not benefit the environment,
He said no to a great big new tax which will add to inflationary pressure,
He said no to a great big new tax which will add to the cost of living despite gratuitous subsidies designed to induce a vote for Labour,
He said no to providing redundant computers to school students,
He said no to pink bats,
He said no to the Malaysian solution,
He said no to an NBN which will be made redundant by wireless technology,
He said no to the Government’s knee kjerk reaction to suspend live cattle exports,
He said no thankyou to the Greens,
On all accounts to date, his objections are completely and utterly justified.
He has exposed this Government for all of its incompetence.  The Government’s track record in its current year of delivery has understandably caused the opposition’s default position to oppose Governement policy. 
Play the ball and not the person.

More morons in mackay says:

09:46pm | 16/08/11

I love you CJ

stephen says:

11:22pm | 16/08/11

No KJ… just tell him to stop it.

Chris says:

07:26pm | 16/08/11

Spot on Freddie. I really wish Malcolm were in charge. But why have an eloquent intelligent man leading when you could have a bumbling idiot opposing everything without sound reason.

TomZ says:

12:32pm | 17/08/11

Yeah, yeah. The old “Labor flatheads posing as LNPs calling for Turnbull’s return” trick.

@Chris, “But why have ... ?” ... 56% vs 38% (2PP). That’s why. Perhaps the “bumbling idiot” has something that you are choosing to ignore?

Jimmy G says:

06:03pm | 16/08/11

I am a baby boomer.  & I totally agree with you!

Likes Joining Dots says:

07:42pm | 16/08/11

@Jugger - surely you must agree that ‘pollution’/environmental destruction goes hand in hand with energy consumption.

A BB born between 1945-65 was using far less energy (per capita) than is being consumed today. This is only for electricity consumption, add fossil fuels and it does become worse. You really need to think more about where you want to direct your accusations.

And no, just to save you the effort, I’m not a Baby Boomer.

This is your time Jugger - tell us how you will sort it out by consuming less.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/electric-power-consumption-kwh-per-capita-wb-data.html

Markus says:

06:25pm | 16/08/11

Very good point.
I think the size of the uproar from the left activists is primarily because it has made them realise just how stupid they look when they do the same on a regular basis.

More morons in mackay says:

09:45pm | 16/08/11

and that just says it all Anthony, no self respecting Prime Minister to be would be seen dead with that lot, let alone be associated with it.

up ear in mah kay we call em Dads, dumb as dog sh-t!

MarK says:

10:21pm | 16/08/11

Oh Anthony….Combet and Shorten, Crean and Ferguson were happy to be associated with people that spat on reporters, asked for the murder of Howard and rampaged through Parliament house. You know, the hard working union members.

Please get some perspective.

or at the least get some facts.

A few bitch signs or a few anti-semantic rants like Hanson Young and Rhiannon? They are the coalition partner to the government.

What a deceitful, biased and pathetic point you make.

The absolute howls of outrage from the left and the woeful hand wringing of the msm when the right dares to actually have a rally is a joy to behold. Typically you have been sucked into it.

Think.

Then type.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:50pm | 16/08/11

I support a carbon tax, just not this badly designed and implemented carbon tax. I support a carbon tax with no compensation, no ETS, carbon tariffs, the proceeds going towards building nuclear power plants and population stabilization. Anything else is a waste of time.

Kevin says:

11:26pm | 16/08/11

Col. of Blackburn says:07:29pm | 16/08/11 Blah Blah

And yet, you wonder why, those on the other side of the fence, who can see through the blatant manipupations of those who believe the fear generated by Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, Monkton, on behalf of their masters Gina, Andrew, Tobacco companies etc., think you lot are a bunch of simpletons for being so gullible.
Then there are the Nats, especially Barnaby Joyce, who don’t even realise they are being played. Barnaby, who today ranted against gay marriage, believing it somehow threatened the wellbieng of his 4 daughters, still doesn’t realise that aching in his anus is actually a Lib puppeteer working him for their own benefit….  the poor little dimwit.

Steven says:

10:10pm | 16/08/11

you mean the one who sacrificed his job to walk to a protest..that seemed a little misguided. I am sure his partner and daughter will appreciate his efforts in the coming weeks.

Rose says:

11:16pm | 16/08/11

I will not forget him,he will forever be a symbol of stupidity to me. He walked when he had more efficient modes of transport available and and all he achieved was to render himself incapable of stringing together a coherent argument.

stephen says:

10:18pm | 16/08/11

Yes, I think she is underrated ; ironically, I think Tony Abbott is too.
(The Oz way ?)
Let’s see, however, what the Greens will do.
Maybe, by foil, they might make us all look so magnificant.

Jaeger says:

07:42am | 17/08/11

He should have driven his truck on Monday; didn’t he get the memo?

Rose says:

03:56pm | 17/08/11

So what’s his excuse for being foolish enough to include issues that can only be solved by state governments. If he wants uniform road rules and conditions around the nation he needs to lobby all the state governments individually, they are not federal issues. People seem to think that the federal government is somehow ‘in-charge’ of the state governments, not true.

HappyCynic says:

03:00pm | 17/08/11

Well duh… she’s a politician, it’s her job to lie to the faces of the people.  If you can name one politician who doesn’t lie I’ll give you a rainbow farting unicorn.

I can’t believe how incredulous people act when they realise a politician has lied to them!  Were you all born yesterday, or are are you lot all just a bunch of illiterate idiots.

Dazeddazza says:

02:07pm | 17/08/11

Just curious, what is an “aged bogan”?  Is it someone like me, over 60, served my country in the ADF, struggled to bring up a family but did so successfully.  Is it because I read and listen to all points of view and make my own decisions?  You may be a troll, but to call people who care “white trash” is a sign of mental immaturity.  I don’t want the carbon tax, and I could not give two hoots if homosexuals marry into their own gender.  Therefore proudly an aged bogan.

John Taylor says:

03:48pm | 17/08/11

Well good for you.  Maybe someone like me, over 45, currently raising a family, quite successfully, have served in the ADF….but I know how to use an apostrophe and so therefore am not a bogan.

In this country, Mr Pseudonym, (using your own name might be a sign of maturity as well as courage, Digger) notwithstanding the hysterics from the Depends Brigade, we have free speech.  We have democracy.  Therefore if I see a mobocracy behaving like White Trash, then I am at perfect liberty to say so.  It is not any form of immaturity - merely a reflection on my seeing the behaviour for myself and calling it as I see it. Of course, I accept they have a democratic right to make complete idiots of themselves and those who may choose to protest more rationally.

You however seem to have a problem with my right to an opinion and express it.  That is a sign of emotional immaturity if ever I saw one.

Davo says:

02:26pm | 17/08/11

Mr Abbott has promised to take the issue to a double dissolution election if the Greens block it, so three months after the next election he wants to force the people back to the polls to elect not only the federal government again but the entire senate too.

THEN after all of that he proposes to continue to meet the Labour Government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 5% by introducing a scheme he has admitted will cost the tax payers more per tonne of CO2 using the same government bureaucrats that operated the pink bats scheme.

Mikko says:

05:31pm | 17/08/11

Sorry Physicist, logic doesn’t work with the looney left.

John Taylor says:

06:11pm | 17/08/11

Ah yes, the right never engage in ad hominem attacks, no….problem is with you precious luvvies on the right, you can dish it out but you cannot eat it.  And where was the reason on display yesterday?  I saw nothing but a pack of silly old farts and fartesses being awfully cross.  Seriously, that is what teabags and bex are for.  Try some reason and rationality and you might get some in return.

Fact is, no matter what argument is put up, you wont accept it as the lingua franca of the right is “lalalalala” with fingers (or is that finger’s?) in ears.

And you cannot take a bit of ridicule?  Awwww, you poor dears.  Were the nasty wasty lefties all rude at school?  HTFU, or is this just political correctness gone mad?

Note for file Donny Boy - you might get your concerns taken more seriously if your lot acted less like a fossilized rent a crowd rent with invective and faux patriotic fervour and more like reasonable adults (not that the left are much better - so in the interests of bipartisanship both ends of the argument should grow up and act their ages and not their shoe sizes).  If the measure of your side of the debate is Wrinkles on the Rampage yesterday you lot deserve all you get and then some.

Fact is, this is less about a carbon tax and more about tax - the ruck and rabble on display yesterday are the epitome of the “If your father is your mother’s brother vote One Nation” crush that for years have been running the garbage line that taxation is unconstitutional.  Sticks out a mile and stinks like a country dunny.  So spare us eh?

I couldnt give a toss either way about the tax.  There are plenty of taxes I don’t like paying.  I don’t like paying a medicare levy because I look after my health and that of my family and I am just subsidizing a hell of a lot of unfit and unhealthy slobs.  I don’t like paying a flood levy because Queenslanders are too damned arrogant to insure themselves properly.  I didnt like paying a gun levy when a conservative government decided to criminalise law abiding citizens.  I dont like it that my taxes go to support defence spending on futile wars that have nothing to do with Australia.  I don’t like my taxes going to middle class welfare when so many other Australians live in abject squalor and poverty.  I am utterly disgusted that I pay tax that goes to supporting exceptionally wealthy private schools while public schools have to run cake raffles to buy sports equipment - and don’t get me started on the tax that I pay that goes to supporting the biggest rort in Australia - the Federal Parliament.

Donny says:

01:21pm | 19/08/11

@ John B Taylor, Mmmm, thanks for the assumption that I am from the right.  What, is it unbelieveable that anybody from the left can disagree with the Carbon Tax etc ?
Fossilized Rent a crowd - have you actually attended and seen some of the People who attend Labor/Greens rallies?  Your first half or your response only supports my original post. 
Although I do not normally agree with Rallies etc, I acknowledge that for “Conservative ” people to actually get off their arses and attend something like this shows how angry a lot of the people of Australia actualy are. 
I agree with you that both sides should pull their bloody heads in and act like adults.  All that is happening is clouding an issue with he said/she said crap.
And yes, it is more about a tax in general.  The majority of people can see that to bring in an extra tax at this time will only hurt the economy( even leaving out the pre-election comments regarding No Carbon Tax/Community Consultation and whether it is Constitutional or not).  You only have to look at what is happening opverseas.  Only an idiot would asssume that it will not affect Australia. 
I also hate to pay tax and some of the waste it supports (Politicians come to mind first), however understand that some has to be paid, otherwise no emergency services etc.
I am not being precious, just realistic.

Enrico says:

12:46am | 20/08/11

Don’t ever choose comedy as a vocation.