It’s a strategy that President Obama’s spin team employed when he was neck-deep in political hot water over an incredibly unpopular health care policy – demonise the critics.

Sorry, but isn't this just democracy? Photo: Scott Sady, AP.

Instead of addressing valid criticisms, damn the people making them.

Witness the way the groundswell “Tea Party” movement was wrongly characterised by most of the mainstream media in the US and here as well.  There’s a derisory edge, almost a snigger, whenever the media discuss this significant political movement. 

The fact is, the media, mostly enamored with Obama or at least supportive of his health policy, swallowed and perpetuated the line that critics were on “the radical fringe” and thereby easy to dismiss.  They proved to be neither.

But when the protests grew louder and more passionate, the diversionary tactic then employed was to raise a white herring debate about “civility in political exchange”.  Once again, instead of discussing the criticisms, it was time to “tut, tut” and lament the tone of the debate.  Let’s talk instead about the nasty people who are being so horribly “negative”.

Stung by the fierce public opposition to Gillard’s sudden announcement that Australia was to be saddled with a massive carbon tax, just months after she promised it wouldn’t happen under her leadership, Labor strategists are grasping to employ the Obama tactics.

Witness the way legitimate and copious talkback calls from everyday Australians expressing concern about the carbon tax have been dismissed as a “fear campaign whipped up by shock jocks”.

Witness the confected outrage and beat-up concern about the tone of the debate in reaction to the use of a simile by myself and other Opposition MPs that would normally be considered part of the cut and thrust of political debate.

Labor Governments get suddenly sensitive when they have an unpopular, complex and difficult-to-sell policy.  And the media become reticent to ask tough questions when it’s a policy they support.

Of course, the reason the carbon tax is hard to sell is because it’s a dud.  Like a dodgy used car salesman, Gillard is trying to foist a lemon on the Australian public.  And early reaction shows they simply aren’t buying.

In fact, consumer confidence has taken a nose-dive since the announcement and industry groups and businesses are increasingly demanding concessions and compensation. 

There are so many legitimate questions about Labor’s massive carbon tax. Will petrol be included? We don’t know for sure but the Greens want it to be, so it’s highly likely.  How much will it add to the cost of living? What we do know is that increased energy costs will feed into the price everything.

But the biggest question of all is – what exactly will Labor’s massive new tax actually achieve?

We will be exporting our production to countries with less stringent environmental regulations.  In one foul swoop not only will we have exported jobs but also exported production to countries who will emit more carbon to make the things we used to.

In fact, it will be a huge incentive for big polluters like China and India to ramp up production to maximize their competitive advantage while it lasts.

Wayne Swan talks in vague terms about our economy being “left behind”. This is tricky doublespeak when in fact the carbon tax will add to costs for local industry and make imports more competitive.

Instead of explaining their carbon tax, Labor will demonise those Australians who have legitimate concerns.  They’ll reduce the discussion to one about the “tone” of the debate and take offence at any slightly colourful criticisms.  It diverts attention and gets them off the hook.

The fact is, the real “purpose” of this tax is to ensure Julia Gillard and Labor cling to power at all costs.  It can be the only reason to adopt a policy that she categorically rejected just a few months ago.  Labor needs the Greens to smile favourably on them to retain power.

Julia Gillard can stick to her promise to the Australian people to not introduce a carbon tax.  She has a choice.  She can refuse to introduce the tax and risk the ire of the Greens.  But that could mean they withdraw support for the Government. 

So Gillard’s clear choice is between her commitment to the Australian people and their jobs or keeping her own job.

A delusional leader desperately clinging to power at all cost … well, you draw your own comparisons if you dare!

223 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sherlock says:

      05:30am | 08/03/11

      It’s a popular tactic among the left. Simply dismiss any opposing opinion as invalid and that way you don’t have to actually develop an argument to support your own position. This is the left’s number one tactic when anything to do with climate change is involved. The problem for the left is that it hasn’t worked yet they still continue to try it.

      Australia going it alone with a carbon tax is plain insanity. Increasing the cost of everything including the cost of doing business here will only make us less competitive when compared to other suppliers in the region.

      This isn’t even about if you believe in climate change. Even the most fervent believer knows that this tax will do nothing to halt/delay/alleviate any possible effect of climate change or lower the temperature of the globe by even a thousandth of a degree.

      So to levy a new and damaging tax that will achieve precisely stuff all is just madness. I have yet to hear a single plausible reason apart from pure token symbolism.

      This proposed tax is that difficult to justify that the left has very little recourse apart from demonising it’s critics. .As I said if you dismiss your critics arguments as invalid you don’t have to come up with your own cogent argument to support your position.

      I’m not necessarily against a carbon tax. Certainly if there is an international agreement along these lines I would suggest we would be a party to it as we should be, but to go it alone just doesn’t make any sense.

      I don’t think anybody seriously believes this is an environmental tax. It’s about raising revenue for a government that has seriously (and predictably) overspent and the leftist dream of income redistribution.

      The government thought it could bluff the public by shrouding this in an environmental cloak but the latest polls reveal that the electorate can see the government’s green-washing for exactly what it is

    • Ripa says:

      06:58am | 08/03/11

      NZ post carbon tax, Petrol prices.. $2.20.,
      Carbon tax is just that, a TAX, and nothing more.

    • Monkey Brain says:

      07:17am | 08/03/11

      Ripa, that is NZ$, right?

    • Jim says:

      07:40am | 08/03/11

      Doesn’t matter if it’s NZ dollars….that’s why we have exchange rates. If it’s $2.20 over there then that’s roughly equivalent to $2.20 here - it’s all relative.

    • TimB says:

      08:07am | 08/03/11

      Actually Jim,  for the sake of accuracy, there is a disparity. (Despite our ability to pass off NZ coins as Australian currency!)

      $2.20 NZD works out to be about $1.60 here.

      But that’s still significantly more than we pay for petrol at the moment, so Ripa’s original point stands.

    • acotrel says:

      08:09am | 08/03/11

      Sophie, is the Liberal Party now aligning itself with the Tea Party, ‘a significant political movement’?  I would have thought stealing One Nation’s policies was enough!

    • Scarneck says:

      08:15am | 08/03/11

      Jim @ 07:40am….are you part of the LNP shadow treasury team? Economics 101 would serve you well.

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:18am | 08/03/11

      @Ripa

      And what were petrol prices before the NZ ETS?  Hmmmm?  In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of an ETS over there petrol prices fluctuated between $1.35 a litre and $2.20 a litre.  Today the price of fuel on average in NZ is $2.10 which is comparable to the last time oil was this expensive.

      Inconvenient facts are inconvenient aren’t they?

    • What the facts are says:

      08:58am | 08/03/11

      The price of unleaded in NZ is 2.05 NZ
      At the current exchange rate, that is 1.45 AUS per litre

      A bit different than $2.20 Aus
      Did you pass maths in school jim?

    • Laura says:

      09:10am | 08/03/11

      Well said Sherlock! And good on you Sophie Mirabella!

      So Miss Gillard, of the 57 varieties of trash and bruise, cut and smear, rip and spit, stab and spray, is blaming Tony Abbott for her dive in the polls.

      Of course she is. This vain and deluded woman can not face the fact that her poll plunge might have something to do with the juicy tarradiddles she likes to tell. She can not contemplate that she’s a rotten sales woman. She can not cope with the idea that the public is just not buying her latest scheme, the very taxing crack-pot carbon tax, which is not a tax but a price (not). She won’t consider that her blatant green grab for our hard-earned cash, is a bridge too far, even for her rusted-on types. Finally enough is enough.

      Even when compared to Kevin (oh what a dud) Rudd, it seems her numbers are reaching bottom of the barrel, bargain basement digits.  But according to Miss Gillard (aka Madame Lash) it is everyone else who is to blame. This appears to be Miss G.‘s default position.

      Of course she’s been cushioned from reality for far too long. In parliament, she’s regularly protected by her speaker Harry Jenkins. In newspapers she’s constantly stroked by salivating chums like Michelle Grattan, Peter Hartcher and Laurie (I love Labor) Oakes. And in the world of the Independent (Not) MP’s there’s been a kind of: I’ll tickle your fancy and you snuggle up to my honey-pot, sweetie.

      Everyone knows Miss Gillard is a fraud and her numbers will never again go higher than a pre-pubescent girl’s bra size. The sooner an election is called the better.

    • Jim says:

      09:23am | 08/03/11

      As a matter of fact I did mate! I was referring to the furphy that you can’t apply the exchange rates and then compare prices.

      If milk is US$2 a litre in the US, then it should be AUD$2 a litre here…the values of each countries currency varies and the exchange rates keep that very simple concept true.

    • bill grant says:

      09:36am | 08/03/11

      wow Jim, you really are from the Hockey-Joyce school of economic illiteracy aren’t you?  Petrol prices are determined internationally.  If your exchange rate is low against the $US , then you will pay more in your currency.  This is no-brainer stuff, but I suspect that might be your problem.  No wonder you a re fan of Sophie and her Tea Party aspirations!

    • What the facts are says:

      09:38am | 08/03/11

      Jim are you serious?
      oil and refined fuel are internationally priced in US dollars. We both buy our petrol based on the Singapore benchmark price of petrol which priced in US dollars.
      Guess what Jim, an Australian dollar buys more petrol in Singapore than an NZ dollar. What part of that don’t you understand?
      Revisit your maths classes

    • Jim says:

      09:52am | 08/03/11

      Call me what you like…purchasing power parity isn’t a hard concept for most. Australia and NZ have the same index, so if $2.20/L is expensive there, then our fuel will be equally as expensive in relative terms.

    • Jim says:

      09:55am | 08/03/11

      Oh, and Bill….surely you would know this, but our fuel prices have nothing to do with the US dollar or Texas Crude prices…

    • bill says:

      10:40am | 08/03/11

      Jim are you seriously saying that our oil prices are not determined internationally in market trading in $US? (I said nothing re: Texan Crude - our price is determined by the Asian-Pacific and Singapore Indexes - which are based on international fuel prices, and traded in $US). Are you seriously saying that NZ fuel prices are ‘normally’ the same as ours? You are so wrong on both counts, and 2 minutes research would tell you that you are mistaken.  If your point is that NZ$2.20 will always buy in NZ what you can buy for AUS$2.20 in Aust, then you are mistaken. Internationally priced commodities will cost you more.  Posts here have shown you your mistakes and you persist. Like many from your side of politics, you never let evidence and reason get in the way of impassioned ‘belief’ and ‘common sense’ (i.e. ‘what I believe is right, no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise’, and I’ll just yell louder than you rather than listen).  Scary thing is that this approach is working for Abbott at present - all those years of cuts to education budgets and US cultural influence are dumbing us down.

    • James1 says:

      11:39am | 08/03/11

      Bill, Jim is talking about Purchasing Power Parity, which looks at relative income levels and the prices extant in the economy in question, and then levels these out so that the affordability of living between countries is compared, rather than raw figures like GDP per capita or petrol prices.  And as such, he is absolutely correct.

    • Bill Grant says:

      01:38pm | 08/03/11

      James 1 - PPP is a theory and applies roughly across a ‘basket of goods’ and is most applicable for locally produced and traded items.  For internationally priced imports is just doesn’t work - the exchange rate gets to be the main price determinate.  This is economics 101 stuff (& I know, having suffered three years of uni level economics). The point to make is that fuel prices in NZ are a bit higher even when valued in AUS$, but they were so before the carbon price, and the difference is not the $0.80 or so that Jim is implying the difference due to carbon pricing is.  Carbon pricing will likely add up to 2-6c/L - which if phased in over 5 years through a gradually increasing carbon price will not be too much of a shock to bear, especially if tax refunds are given from the revenue pool generated.  The market will respond by people and business buying more efficient cars and the fuel companies putting more ethanol in the mix - and that is the point.

    • Dingbat says:

      01:44pm | 08/03/11

      The Carbon tax will do no damage to the Australian economy whatsoever. There will be small increases averaging about $10/week for an average household, and most will be compensated for this. No industries will move offshore; the economy will not collapse; civilisation will not be destroyed; businesses will better be able to plan for the future and develop cleaner technologies. For the nuclear fans amongst you a carbon price is the only way nuclear will ever be viable in Australia (without subsidies of course; and we know how much you hate government spending). The increases to cost of living will be less than what every single one of you pays every time you pay your electricity bill - the GST on utilities. Perhaps Sophie and Tony could put a bill into parliament proposing to scrap the GST on electricity - I mean they care so much about cost of living issues.

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:28pm | 08/03/11

      @ Dingbat Julia is on the phone and she wants to know where you got these figures from as apparently Wayne Swann and the Treasury having a bit of trouble with them.

      She also said to ask how you were sure the 522,000,000 households would be willing to pay $520 extra tax / year you know with interest rates going up and all.

      She asked how you were going to stop companies who invested money into green technology from raising the costs of their goods to meet those costs

      Oh she wont stop now she wants to know if nuclear is to expensive what other forms of base power supply would be available at a low cost she could use the tax for.

      Damn I’ve had enough now she reckons that I pay about $300 a quarter for electricity each quarter and that works out at $1200 / year extra tax or $20 / week for the average household or is that on top of the tax and its $30 /week and $1560 for the year.

      She said not to mention the scraping of GST on electricity because then she would have to raise that revenue lost from another tax and she doesn’t think it will poll well if she has to introduce it.

      What for a 0,015% in reduction of global emissions.

      Bugga this! I will give her your number and she can ring you as you have all the answers.

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:12pm | 08/03/11

      @ Bill Grant I am just a humble blogger I am afraid and your PPP and twisting of Jims words and stuff made me a bit confused. So I thought I would do it the fair way and look at the % increase of fuel in NZ against the % increase of fuel in AU over 2010 and I believe Fossil fuel was incorporated into the ETS in July of 2010.

      AU fuel prices rose by 2.5% as compared to 14% increase in New Zealand over 2010.

      Now I will admit there were some extenuating circumstances and a 7c tax. Lower commodity prices did initially save NZ the blow of the ETS in July but at the end of the year the increase of these commodity prices had an effect that was much sharper than experience in Australia.

      Take out the 7c tax and it’s an 11% rise in NZ fuel prices as opposed to 2.5% in AU.

      I think this is much easier don’t you than getting bogged down in parity pricing and exchange rates by just doing a simple % increase over a period of time.

      Now you are the economics degree bloke so I thought I would add my links so you can check my calculations. I just like to be fair. 

      http://www.nzcx.com/nzets.htm

      http://motormouth.com.au/newsletters/1101.htm

      http://www.aa.co.nz/motoring/owning/running-costs/petrolwatch/Pages/AA-Petrolwatch-2010.aspx

    • Govt.Faux citizen says:

      01:08am | 09/03/11

      Any mug who beleives that every cent raised directly or inderectly from a carbon tax is going to be pumped back into “Low Income Pockets” needs a reality check, how in hell is the Govt. going to know how much carbon was produced for you to exist?  IE: power for your essential living, refrigerated lolly water,cold beer, 50’’ plasma 16 hours a day, 3 x PS3 or Xbox 12 hrs a day, Hydroponic Garden Lights, spa bath, swimming pool, takeaway junk food,,,,, OF course, the good old electric meter, the same kind that was going to revolutionise ambulance services here in Sunny QLD?? More socialist BS on a stick with sauce in a sesame pita wholegrain pocket bread, because it’s good for you,, and did ambulance services improve?? NAAAA, and voters forgot it at 3 different elections.  Aunty joolya can buy some votes with rebates to the likely demographic, and the foolish rich like Gayle Kelly ceo of Westpac publicly endorsing an ETS earning insane amounts of Millions Per Annum, still pays the same for a litre of milk, motor vehicle registration, electricity…......or is her support clandestine greed for more cash, trading in R.E.C.s? ,, the latest global rort wich would make a Nigerian scammer proud if it were his IDEA, but alas it’s not, it’s a fellow citizen/s and our leader/s instead, in the end the only winners of this madness disguised as genius, will be the same global competitors who don’t have an ETS, who have killed off our manufacturing industries in every facet of industry including foods. The same mob who never signed up at Copenhagen. !!!!! But thats OK, at least Uncle waynek and Aunty joolya will have the cash to ballance the books come 2012 -2013 budget, and as promised be in surplus. This way she can at least break one promise to keep another !!!!!!!

    • acotrel says:

      04:22am | 10/03/11

      @Laura The poison you’ve displayed in your post is the very reason women have a problem being accepted as equals with men in Australian society!  Its the same sort of stuff Germaine Greer came out with when she shit-canned her own mother on national TV! Some of us won’t cop that sort of rubbish!

    • Tedd says:

      05:47am | 08/03/11

      Critics? You mean those that liken the Australian PM to Gaddafi?

      Asking “what exactly will Labor’s massive new tax actually achieve?”  is the loaded question fallacy.

      Your credibility is shot, Sophie Mirabella.

    • martinX says:

      06:49am | 08/03/11

      I believe she was referring to the “all my people love me” delusion adopted by Gadaffi (and Gillard), not the “shoot ‘em up, boys” stance taken by the the outspoken member of the UN’s Human Rights Council.

      A clumsy comparison at best, but hardly a hanging offence.

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:50am | 08/03/11

      Thanks for so eloquently proving Sophie’s point Tedd! and while your here could you please explain

      “What exactly will Labor’s massive new carbon tax actually achieve?”

      Many of the Punchers have been asking the same question for about 3 weeks now and we still haven’t got an answer

    • MarK says:

      07:10am | 08/03/11

      HAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Thanks for proving the point of the article.

      I love it.


      HAHAHAHAHAHA

    • acotrel says:

      08:12am | 08/03/11

      ‘Julia Gillard can stick to her promise to the Australian people to not introduce a carbon tax.  She has a choice.  She can refuse to introduce the tax and risk the ire of the Greens.  But that could mean they withdraw support for the Government’
      YOU WISH ! - Delusional as ever?

    • acotrel says:

      08:16am | 08/03/11

      @Tedd, Sophie’s mates all live on the banks of the Buckland River. They look like Essendon supporters! She should go back there and reconsider their poison.

    • acotrel says:

      08:54am | 08/03/11

      @ZRS
      ‘“What exactly will Labor’s massive new carbon tax actually achieve?”

      Many of the Punchers have been asking the same question for about 3 weeks now and we still haven’t got an answer ‘

      Explain WHAT?  Your comprehension obviously doesn’t go beyond understanding ‘a great big new tax on everything’!

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      09:03am | 08/03/11

      acotrel
       
      Just tell us how much the global temperature will drop for each $1 per tonne of carbon tax.

    • Ryan says:

      09:09am | 08/03/11

      @Tedd: perhaps you should have read the article in its entirety before going ahead and confirming exactly what Sophie said. Not too smart.

    • Catching up says:

      09:51am | 08/03/11

      When has PM Gillard ever said or for that matter say she wanted everyone to love her?

      I am happy for the writer to continue repeating this statement, a statement she is proud of and sees no wrong in.

      It may turn some on, but in the long run as most Australians are decent, it will turn more off.

    • Tanya Bush says:

      10:18am | 08/03/11

      See, they just prove the point don’t they. Good One Tedd - I bet you don’t know what irony is either. At least I got a good laugh out of your naivety.

    • bobw says:

      12:43pm | 08/03/11

      You have to love the way the usual suspects are so quick to latch onto the “you’ve proved her point” line - apparently oblivious to the basic worthlessness of this article (and its “point”) as a contribution to public debate.

    • ZSRenn says:

      02:30pm | 08/03/11

      @ bobw I agree and how about the way usual set of characters have failed to answer my question

      “What will Labors massive new tax actually achieve”

      They cant so they wont!

    • Steve Smith says:

      03:33pm | 08/03/11

      It is only the Liberals that have falsely called it a carbon tax, it is a carbon price Sophie,so why do you and your colleagues continuely lie to the Australian public ?

    • Mattb says:

      04:30pm | 08/03/11

      ZSRenn says: 02:30pm | 08/03/11
      @ bobw I agree and how about the way usual set of characters have failed to answer my question

      “What will Labors massive new tax actually achieve”

      They cant so they wont!

      I’ve got a question for you….. “what will TA and the libs ‘great big spend’ on paying the countries largest polluters actually achieve?”

      You can’t answer it, so you wont…..

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:32pm | 08/03/11

      Encarta Tax

      A levy placed on the citizens of a nation by its government to be used for the running of the country

      1) We the citizens will be paying
      2) it will be used for the running of the country

      Tax This argument is getting so old but wait am I actually paying a Goods and Services Price or GSP and why have people been lieing to me about this for so long. I would be much happier paying a GSP than a GST

      MM I wonder.

    • Tedd says:

      06:50pm | 08/03/11

      Hahahahaha.

      I know irony.  It’s my middle name.

      Stil a silly article.  Loved the ironic responses to my irony about irony.

    • Mouse says:

      06:58pm | 08/03/11

      @ Steve Smith, no a carbon price is the ETS. We will have a carbon tax in the interim, 3-5 years BEFORE we have a price on carbon/ETS. FYI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
      A carbon tax is an environmental tax that is levied on the carbon content of fuels.[1] Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
      Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.[1]
      A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant. Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or carbon credits) equivalent to their emissions. The total number of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits.[1] The transfer of permits is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society
      gillard was the one that stated pre-election that she would not have a carbon tax. Liberals are only using the statement she made. It is, therefore, not the Liberals that are lying to the Australian public.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:03pm | 08/03/11

      What credibilty has Smokin’  Sophie ever had?

    • persephone says:

      05:47am | 08/03/11

      Oh, so comparing the PM to Gaddafi was a reasoned critique backed up by facts, not a diverstionary tactic?

      I thought it was directly linked to the revelation, the previous evening, that the Coalition’s plan to tackle climate change was more costly to the taxpayer and less effective than Labor’s.

      Given your history of abusing people who disagree with you - even to the extent of describing your own colleagues as ‘political terrorists’ - I found the headline to this story more than a little ironic.

      Oh, and she isn’t ‘clinging to power at all costs’. She doesn’t need to ‘cling’. She’s there for the next two and a half years.

      Governing means making hard decisions (Tony Abbott doesn’t have the guts to make them). It means taking short term pain for long term gain. It means doing what’s right rather than what’s popular.

      You keep on going down the populist path. It works in the short term and to you and your party, polls are all that count.

      And, if Gillard loses the election in two and a half years time, at least she can say that she’s achieved things - a price on carbon, the NBN, health reform - and left more than a legacy than your government did.

    • Jim says:

      06:39am | 08/03/11

      Gaddafi seized power in a coup, he is a socialist, he is delusional, he thinks his people love him, he drives his people into economic hardship, he refuses to allow his people to democratically vote for things that will change their lives.

      A pretty accurate comparison I would say.

    • Warren says:

      06:57am | 08/03/11

      Nicely put.

    • James2 says:

      07:09am | 08/03/11

      Persephone - It was the polls that ousted ex Prime Minister Rudd remember.  Who was running down the populist path then? You seem to only listen to polls when it suits you and your agenda my friend.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:09am | 08/03/11

      @perse I’ve got $100 says she doesn’t make the 2 1/2 years out as Prime Minister.

      I know many will argue “Oh but he wasn’t a minister at the time!”

      But a Senior Labor figure like Keating who is on the massive Prime Ministers retirement package and is a leading statesman touted out for Labor promotion again at tax payer expense likening John Howard to Hitler is the exactly the same bird.

      Get off your high horse and give me some real debate!

      Re Gillard
      If she is there in 2 1/2 years at least she can say she has achieved something

      a price on carbon – It is called a tax and is yet to be finalized

      the NBN - now back under discussion with another committee.

      hospital reform - even further away for an outcome.

      I wish you were my boss.

      “I’m off boss!” says zsrenn

      “Ok mate did you finish those jobs I gave you?” replies perse

      “Na but I gave them a little thought and talked to a few blokes about them” says zsrenn

      “Good stuff! You might as well take a holiday to the states then seeing there finished and I’ll see you in a week” says perse

    • Brian Taylor says:

      07:23am | 08/03/11

      she sure is clinging to power at all costs’, if she isn’t, then why won’t queen bee julia call an election on this tax? because she damn well knows, she’ll be her big fat backside kicked, thats why per, wish you labor suporters would grow a brain. or does thinking too much give you lot a headache?

    • Flexo says:

      07:27am | 08/03/11

      Comparing Gillard to Gaddafi is an insult to Gaddafi and a complement to Juliar. smile

    • MarK says:

      07:32am | 08/03/11

      ”  persephone says:

        05:47am | 08/03/11”

      Yippeeee. This will be a hoot no doubt. Let us have a look at what is being discussed today.

        ” Oh, so comparing the PM to Gaddafi was a reasoned critique backed up by facts, not a diverstionary tactic?”

      Errrr yes. To lie to people and to yourself is a trait Gaddaffi has shown ample apptitude for. Quite a good comparison.

      Now that I have answered the question directly don’t you think proving Sophies point in you opening sentence is like running up the white flag before you start?

      Let me to be bold enough to suggest you don’t do this in future. Build up to a refutation if you must. Doing what you are doing is kind of self defeating. Trying to be neighbourly and help here in the true nature of our dolphin and crystal paradigm of sunshine politics.

      ”  I thought it was directly linked to the revelation, the previous evening, that the Coalition’s plan to tackle climate change was more costly to the taxpayer and less effective than Labor’s.”

      Snicker.

      Yet again using look at the Unicorn arguments is sort of dumb. You guys have a great big new tax on everything to discuss and sort out…..as well as health, boat people and everything else.

      Much better to talk about your message, you the positive one (snicker) that you guys bang on about.

      We wouldn’t want the Labor party to be seen to be involved in fear campaigns, in scare campaigns, in negativity or saying NO would we.

      Tsk tsk. We wouldn’t want that now would we.

      So how about your plan….what is involved again?

        ”  Given your history of abusing people who disagree with you - even to the extent of describing your own colleagues as ‘political terrorists’ - I found the headline to this story more than a little ironic.”

      I thought the headline was a ripper.

      Opinions vary raspberry

      Now what was the piece about…..ahhh yes, shooting the critic and not discussing the message or something like that

        ”  Oh, and she isn’t ‘clinging to power at all costs’. She doesn’t need to ‘cling’. She’s there for the next two and a half years.”

      Yah,

      30%. It would appear the government has “lost its way”. This seems to be the catalyst for action in Labor. Would it be unfair for Shorten to move against her given her own metric for action?

      Hmmmm.

      It is an interesting argument point that I have been seeing a lot from the “positive” progressives lately. The “we are here for 2 and half more years so there ....presumably with a poke of tongue at the end of the statement.

      Now I am not sure that this a positive message or a real reason to want power. I would have thought just occupying the seat is sort of pointless unless you are going to do something worthwhile. Or at least do something that is the will of the people.

      30% wow….....how embarrassment.

        “Governing means making hard decisions (Tony Abbott doesn’t have the guts to make them). It means taking short term pain for long term gain. It means doing what’s right rather than what’s popular.”

      /snore

      Yeh yeh yeh.

      Please explain her advice to Rudd then. Please explain her lie to the Australian people pre election.

      Please also explain why that guy who pretends to be treasurer…errrr Swan….still is trying to argue this is not a tax? Why the semantics? Didn’t you just say say good government is about being tough?.

      Semantics is for real men then or what?

        ”  You keep on going down the populist path. It works in the short term and to you and your party, polls are all that count.”

      Polls are all that count? Populist?

      When are you going to actually discuss the issue.

      This is exactly what the piece was about.

      HAHAHAHAHA

        ” And, if Gillard loses the election in two and a half years time, at least she can say that she’s achieved things - a price on carbon, the NBN, health reform - and left more than a legacy than your government did.”

      Snicker.

      Who says she will have a price on carbon?

      Who says she will be there in a months time let alone 2 years?

      What health reform? She has an agreement to have a meeting sometime later.

      The NBN? /golfclap.

      Ahhhh the positive message of the progressives amount to nah nah nah nah we are better than you so there.

      What about that hawt tamale in the picture. Sarah Palin…./swoon. What a girl. Now there is a politician with some conviction and courage eh pers.

      Did you see the polls pers? The approval ratings are a hoot. Comments? Honeymoon (lawl) is over?

    • Jim says:

      07:37am | 08/03/11

      Exactly James2…you could pull any long-winded, patronising and utterly false post by persephone from a few months ago and she was quoting the latest poll results daily!

    • TimB says:

      07:42am | 08/03/11

      “Oh, so comparing the PM to Gaddafi was a reasoned critique backed up by facts, not a diverstionary tactic?”

      Yes it was. Gaddaffi claims his people love him whilst his country is wracked by rebellion.

      Julia claims that Australians are in favour of a Carbon tax when the polls show they clearly aren’t.

      They’re both delusional, and the comparison is valid. To claim anything more was meant by Sophie’s comment is idiotic.

      “Oh, and she isn’t ‘clinging to power at all costs’. She doesn’t need to ‘cling’. She’s there for the next two and a half years.”

      Also wrong. She pisses off one too many MP’s in her fragile alliance and she could face an early election. You know this.

      “Governing means making hard decisions (Tony Abbott doesn’t have the guts to make them). It means taking short term pain for long term gain”

      What gain? You still haven’t given us anything concrete. Just empty ‘Oh we’ll be left behind otherwise, if we do this everything will be magically better’ . Please.

      “You keep on going down the populist path. It works in the short term and to you and your party, polls are all that count.”

      *snerk*

      Remember who knifed Kevin Rudd the minute his poll figures dived. Remember who backpedalled and tossed out/drastically altered policies left and right in response to poll numbers.  Julia’s insanely lucky she’s being protected by the hung parliament at the moment.

      “And, if Gillard loses the election in two and a half years time, at least she can say that she’s achieved things - a price on carbon, the NBN, health reform - and left more than a legacy than your government did. “

      One problem. None of those things have happened yet. Health reform was supposed to be in place 2 years ago. The Carbon Tax relies on the Greens not being stubborn and the indepndents not having a sudden attack of common sense. And the NBN won’t be anywhere near finished by then.
      They’re big on promises but Labor don’t have the best track record when it comes to actually delivering things. Just look at NSW. We’re still waiting for our Epping-Parra rail link.

      And yes, Howard’s government did achieve important things. Just because you ignore them doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

      Example- If (as you claim), the Rudd government was responsible for saving us from the GFC, then you can thank the Howard government for leaving Labor a surplus with which to do it. Sounds like a legacy to me.

    • Dash says:

      08:10am | 08/03/11

      Perse, I think the polls speak for themselves today don’t you?

      Gillard’s legacy (apart from the biggest federal debt in history), will be the most disgraceful socialist era in Australian political history!

      Electricity is up, water is up, fuel is up, groceries are up, interest rates are up, childcare costs are up, home affordability is down. That’s what the ALP have actually delivered so far (not to mention wasting billions of our taxes on failed schemes and rorts). I don’t care what they say, that’s what they’ve done. That’s their current legacy!

      Howard delivered full employment, paid off the nations federal debt ($96billion of ALP debt), restored the countries AAA rating, delivered 5 years of consecutive PAYG tax cuts (so far we have 3 new taxes since the ALP has come to office!), reduced illegal immigration, built the Darwin to Adelaide railway (the ALP can’t even build one between Epping and Parrammatta!), brought in the single most significant tax reform since 1936, assisted families with childcare (since the ALP have come to power childcare costs are up over 20%), assisted people to own their own homes, delivered the Financial Services Reform Act which did more to protect Australia from the GFC than $900 to dead people, and GDP growth higher than any other western nation!

      Btw, the ALP assassinated the elected PM Rudd ion the basis of the ALPs standing in the polls. And Gillard and Swan lied to the Australian people to win office. The ALP have no shame!

    • The Original Oz says:

      08:18am | 08/03/11

      Wake up pers - clinging to power is exactly what she is doing. A single no confidence motion from the Greens or the Independents (or their deciding to break the rainbow/watermelon coalition) will send us straight back to the polls. Gillard is bending over backwards to please these lunatics so persephone, Yes she is desperately clinging to power.

    • Hamish says:

      08:23am | 08/03/11

      MarK and TimB, I think you’ve fallen for Perse’s own diversionary tactic. Perse is playing the man in a classic attempt to divert attention from the bigger issue - that the ALP are in severe trouble, their leader is a dead woman walking who will surely get knifed very soon (how must KRudd feel? He was still way more popular than JGill when he got betrayed by her) and this carbon tax is simply a terrible policy. It will make Australia less competitive, encourage countries which produce similar products not to bring in a price on carbon and generally make imports far more competitive than goods made here (I’m not sure if the ALP have realised this issue with imports yet or not, after all Wayne Swan is totally incompetent). Oh, and it will do absolutely nothing for the global climate.

      It’s like those dudes in the middle ages who wore hairshirts, except it’s an entire country and no who lives here who is a real person actually wants to wear it.

      I also love how Perse has talked about Gillard’s ‘achievements’ as if they’ve actually happened.

    • Skatman says:

      08:35am | 08/03/11

      Brian Taylor says: 07:23am “she sure is clinging to power at all costs’, if she isn’t, then why won’t queen bee julia call an election on this tax? - Because she doesn’t have to Brian, Gillard has the numbers on the floor, Labor supporters understand this, so who exactly is lacking a brain Brian? Get over it Brian, Gillard has a mandate, but more importantly, she has the guts to introduce unpopular policies, something the opposition scaremongers could never do, to introduce a policy you need a policy.

    • acotrel says:

      08:40am | 08/03/11

      @Jim
      ‘Gaddafi seized power in a coup, he is a socialist, he is delusional, ‘

      ‘delusional’, you ought to know!

    • The Original Oz says:

      09:25am | 08/03/11

      Skatman - Gillard has no mandate for this Carbon Tax BECAUSE prior to the election both her and her toady treasurer Swan clearly and unequivocally stated that there would be no Carbon Tax under a Gillard government. This simple statement rules out any arguments that she has a mandate for this ridiculous faux Climate Change policy.

    • Sherlock says:

      09:27am | 08/03/11

      persephone says: I thought it was directly linked to the revelation, the previous evening, that the Coalition’s plan to tackle climate change was more costly to the taxpayer and less effective than Labor’s.

      Hmm let’s see. I’d say their effectiveness was about equal. Nothing and nothing sounds about the same to me..

      The Labor plan is going to cost all Australians about 11 billion dollars plus inflation per year every year.

      How much was the coalition plan again?

      Both plans are expensive and useless and should be scrapped. If you want to have a carbon abatement scheme you should be working diplomatically to have one with all pacific countries including the USA ands China a part

    • Jim says:

      09:28am | 08/03/11

      Yeah acotrel…it’s hard not having my soul owned by a poltical party, so hard being ‘delusional’ by not swallowing a party line and and actually doing some research about stuff!

    • What the facts are says:

      09:50am | 08/03/11

      Jim
      You mean research like how the price of petrol is determined?
      Epic fail
      Makes you wonder about all that other research you’ve been doing, doesn’t it?

    • Catching up says:

      09:58am | 08/03/11

      PM Gillard claims that when the public understands the price on carbon and the need for it, they will support it. Now she maybe wrong or she maybe right, only time will tell.
      As for the name calling and finger pointing and the shadow ministers article, what does it add to the debate.

    • Ryan says:

      10:15am | 08/03/11

      Sounding desperate the perse, 30% makes this the worst Labor government in history, well done you actually achieved one thing to leave as a legacy (besides the horrific debt the Liberals will have to pay off AGAIN).

    • Jim says:

      11:58am | 08/03/11

      Lol…what the facts are - please change your name dude. Maybe you should do your 2 minutes on the internet and you’ll find out that we are lumped in the SE Asia fuel zone, and our fuel prices are set in Singapore dollars. The ONLY way US dollars would influence OUR petrol prices is if the Singapore and Australian dollars fluctuated the same against the US dollar…and that would be a coincidence, not a cause.

      I stand to be corrected on the PPP stuff from above - it sounds simple to me but if I’m wrong I have no qualms in saying so, but your fuel argument - you are making yourself look foolish.

      BTW - I have no ‘side’ in politics as you accused me of above. I swing, always have and always will. That allows me to recognise that this Labor government is terrible whichever way you look at it and must go.

    • persephone says:

      07:16pm | 08/03/11

      James2

      no, it wasn’t the polls that ousted Rudd.

      It was his governing style, which left many MPs feeling excluded from the decision making process.

      ZSRenn

      Do we really have to go down the ‘X insult was worse than Y insult”?

      Everytime I point to something Howard has done - usually in an attempt to show that all PMs do much the same sort of thing in government, I don’t think I’ve ever made a personal attack on him - I get told that he’s irrelevant now.

      Which makes Keating even more irrelevant.

      Sophie called the PM names and is now saying that people shouldn’t criticise her in return. Very thin skinned from a serial insulter.

      As for the rest of your post, I really don’t understand what it is you’re trying to say.

      Brian Taylor

      because that’s not the way our government works or has ever worked.

      PMs do not have to go to an election every time what they propose to deliver is different from what they do deliver.

      The test of their legitimacy is on the floor of Parliament. S

      She has that.

      MarK

      sorry, busy day, don’t have the time.

      If you could summarise whatever it is you’re going on about in a couple of lines, I might get around to it.

      TimB

      come on, you understand basic English. Sophie made her comment so that it would distract the media. It did this.

      As for peeing off MPs - doesn’t look like that’s going to happen, does it? They all realise their chances of re election are dependent on Labor delivering. The indies, if anything, are more welded on than ever - they certainly aren’t going to jump ship and support Tony.

      Most of the time, the Coalition can’t even get one of their members - the National from WA - to support them.

      By doing what she is doing, Julia is consolidating her position.

      The gains have been explained to you. Most of the civilised world recognises them. It’s a pity you’re not part of it.

      And Howard’s surplus was (a) not nearly enough to even begin to save us from the GFC: (b) built on reforms built by Keating and (c) in existence because he over taxed the Australian people (taxes are now lower) and failed to deliver the services they needed (which is why we need health reform, for example, and a decent broadband network).

      You can point to one achievement in eleven years, so if Julia delivers three in three, she’s way ahead.

      Dash

      If you read my more recent posts - and, indeed, this one - you can see that the polls don’t worry me.

      Of course, I’d rather they were the other way around and I expect that they will improve once the Liberal scare tactics are shown up for what they are.

      But, as I’ve also said, I don’t care if they don’t, as long as we some important reforms through.

      Whitlam was in charge of a very short term government, but his legacy was Medicare - a far more important and far reaching reform than any made by the Liberals.

      Hamish

      can’t see what will stop any of them. They will be well and truly in place by then.

      Apologies for late and brief replies, have been out all day.

    • What the facts are says:

      08:21pm | 08/03/11

      Poor jim displays his ineptitude about petrol pricing and maths

      Ripa says:
      NZ post carbon tax, Petrol prices.. $2.20.,
      Carbon tax is just that, a TAX, and nothing more.
        Monkey Brain says:
        07:17am | 08/03/11
        Ripa, that is NZ$, right?

      Jim replies
      “Doesn’t matter if it’s NZ dollars….that’s why we have exchange rates. If it’s $2.20 over there then that’s roughly equivalent to $2.20 here - it’s all relative. “

      jim,
      Besides the fact that unleaded petrol is 2.05 in NZ, the exchange rate makes that the equivalent of 1.45 Aus. Petrol is priced in U.S. dollars in both NZ and Aus.
      Have you ever been out of the country and changed money into another currency?
      Why don’t you go over to NZ and bring some NZ dollars back and see if a bank will give you dollar for dollar. Better still, go to England and see if you get a pound for an Australian dollar. They will laugh their heads off.

      You have no idea about how the price of petrol is determined or what an exchange rate is.  Very poor jim, I thought you had an education.
      This stuff is pretty basic. Imagine how confused you are about something complicated, like Climate change.
      Fail big time
      Sorry no wriggle room.

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:48pm | 08/03/11

      I wouldn’t have too if you didn’t keep bringing it up perse. I guess you are on US time now. How’s that working out for ya!

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:45am | 09/03/11

      Above for some reason people started arguing about the price of fuel in NZ and some seemed hell bent on discrediting the fact that fuel was bloody expensive in NZ

      At 4:21 I made a post after much research that showed the price of fuel in NZ had risen by 14% too 2.5% in AU over 2010 which could be contributed to the ETS on fuel placed in July of 2010 in NZ.

      @ 8:21 What the facts are brought that argument to this forum line in an attempt to discredit Jim and rave on about exchange rates etc

      @ “What the facts are” the fact is Fuel rose 14% in NZ over 2010 compared to 2.5% in Australia. Those are the facts and you don’t need exchange rates and confusing PPP to work it out.

      I am smarter than that and I don’t like to be patronised

      Factor that!

      @ Jim

    • TimB says:

      07:49am | 09/03/11

      Perse, why would Sophie need to distract the media? It’s Gillard who’s in trouble. If anyone needs a distraction, it’s her.

      “As for peeing off MPs - doesn’t look like that’s going to happen, does it? They all realise their chances of re election are dependent on Labor delivering”

      Well Windsor is retiring so re-election no longer applies. And he’s trying to backpedal from this thing at a rate of knots. The question is, is he going to put his electorate first for once or is he going to continue down the revenge path? He could go either way.

      Oakeshott could be potentially swayed by a Coalition promise not to run a candidate against him in the next election. Because quite frankly thats his *only* chance of re-election. Nothing Labor does will change his fate.

      The Greens could demand the same harsh measures that led them to torpedo the ETS the other year. If Gillard dosn’t bow down to them (again) the whole deal could be lost.

      And finally some of the more principled Labor members might actually grow a spine and speak out against this thing. I guarantee if that happens the members in question WILL be re-elected.

      Of course they might simply kill the tax in order to avoid the wipeout that’s headed their way if they do go through with it.

      All of the above are outside chances I agree, but completely in the realms of reality. It’s far from over Perse.

      And finally your comments on Howard are a joke. First you claim that it was Kevin that got us through the GFC.  Now you claim it was Keating’s reforms (many of which came from reccomendations made when Howard was Treasurer).

      Then you claim the surplus wasn’t enough, and then you say we were taxed too much? I’d say we were taxed exactly the right amount. And the lower taxes were thanks to Howard.

      How many tax cuts have we had initiated by Labor? Zero. All the recent ones were those budgeted by the previous government, we won’t be getting anymore for the forseeable future.

      Infrastrcuture like hospitals and roads wern’t built because those who are actually in charge of that issue (the states) had Labor governments that pissed their GST windfall against the wall. I live in NSW. I *KNOW* what Labor governments are like with money and infrastructure.

      And we don’t *need* an NBN. It’s a luxury item.

      I can point to many *more*achievements, But 1 is still more than what Julia has. See you say *if* Julia achieves 3. She hasn’t even achoeved one yet. Come back to me when she does.

      Like I said, I’ve lived 16 years under the NSW Labor government, the track record isn’t good.

    • What the facts are says:

      08:54am | 09/03/11

      ZSRenn
      Pity you don’t have any facts to back your “observation” up.
      You are a liar and a fraud
      for a start, the price of petrol was 2.05 yesterday, not 2.20

      Lies will only get you so far.
      PS jim failed bigtime and displayed his inability to do proper research, as did you.

    • Against the Man says:

      06:00am | 08/03/11

      It is a fact that Gillard like Rudd before her are selfish, hopeless causes. There is a psychological damage somewhere in their lives that expose their weak and selfish characteristics.

      Gillard IS doing everything to cling on to power:
      1) Tried to promote a 1/2 arse health policy as a success via lots of political spin
      2) Flood and Tax levy to drain more money from the public to cover up ALP spending mistakes
      3) Allowing Bob Brown to run the country
      4) Lieing her way through it all…...........

      The above is just a sampler of the Gilltard selfishness 3 course meal.

      Cost of living, petrol, health insurance, interest rates all up, up, up thanks to ALP incompetence and please don’t tell me the government has no control, Gilltard and Rudd promised to keep all the above in check one way or the other. Or was that another pack of lies…..........

    • Warren says:

      07:02am | 08/03/11

      *sigh* Another reasoned and balanced argument from ATM.

    • Monkey Brain says:

      07:03am | 08/03/11

      “It’s a strategy that President Obamas spin team used…..etc”
      Just like this opening paragraph from AtM I guess Sophie, who seems to be one of your spin team. Oh the hypocracy.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:46am | 08/03/11

      @ Warren at least it’s an argument and not a derogatory statement

      @ Monkey Brain well the name says it all really! You want to see real hypocrisy then take off your labor goggles.

      @ ATM don’t stoop to their level. They are experts at it and know to just pick at the headline and not read the story.

    • Warren says:

      08:34am | 08/03/11

      “There is a psychological damage somewhere in their lives ” yeah, a really good argument @ZSRenn. So reasoned and insightful.

      The Tea Party think Obama is a Muslim. The Liberals think Gillard is a Communist. Same difference.

    • acotrel says:

      08:47am | 08/03/11

      @ATM
      ‘There is a psychological damage somewhere in their lives that expose their weak and selfish characteristics.’

      How do you explain the fact that Julia rolls Tony Abbott every day during Question Time in parliament?

    • Flexo says:

      09:58am | 08/03/11

      1) Julia is so self obsessed she is willing to back stab her boss and sell out Australia to Bob Brown
      2) Kevin Rudd is a control freak, micromanager that can’t get anything done and a legendary temper to boot

      I don’t think well balanced people with a resonably decent conscience would behave this way.

    • NicoleG says:

      10:05am | 08/03/11

      acotrel, ask Mr Speaker. He let’s her get away with everything. She’s not even made to answer the questions put to her.

    • Paul says:

      10:18am | 08/03/11

      @ alcotrel

      ‘How do you explain the fact that Julia rolls Tony Abbott every day during Question Time in parliament? ‘

      Ummmm. how about because governments always ‘roll’ the opposition during QT. Has to do with the fact that governments (not just the current Government by the way) never actually answer an opposition question, they can just rabbit on for their allotted time, with only cursory relevance to the question..

      This, combined with the ‘Dixers’, which gives them a platform to even set the topic on what they will rabbit on about !!

      Put them on even footing (such as the public forum events leading up to the Election), and you get a more accurate representation.

    • Against the Man says:

      01:29pm | 08/03/11

      *sigh* There are still people out there you are trying to defend and stick up for Juliar Gilltard.

      Sad, so sad.

      People, she is hanging on to get a pension in June, she doesn’t care about you or your children’s future.

      If you can’t counter my points than I must be stating the truth. If I’m stating the truth than Australia is screwed. Time for change, revolt to get Gillard out and faceless men do what you do best.

    • iansand says:

      06:03am | 08/03/11

      Oh.  I see.  What do you call the concentration by the opposition on Ms Gillard’s lies.  What is the Coalition policy on climate change?

      You do realise that the whole Coalition strategy at the moment is personal politics in a policy free zone?

    • ZSrenn says:

      07:23am | 08/03/11

      @ iansand

      Only last week you were whining! TA is telling lies at the market when he was trying to demonstrate the rise in prices on food or at the petrol pump when he was demonstrating a rise in the cost of petrol.

      Now you tell us he is concentrating his attack on Gillard’s lies and not on the tax.

      You seem to forget that some people actually read what you say iansand even if you don’t

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:45am | 08/03/11

      Rubbish.

      Every time, and I mean every single bloody time the opposition wants to implement or support some legislation the Gillard led jokers go “you did a back flip, na na nah!” (Gillard)

      Or “It is vague and esoteric.. and .. If the leader of the Opposition wants to develop a scheme in relation to this matter he should particularise in great specificity what he actually proposes”. This amazing rant is despite that fact that Abbott clearly stated that the legislation would basically be the same as another bit of existing legislation but with “domestic” changed to “overseas”.

      Frankly, the Gillard led government is a disgrace and not worthy to represent anyone. They shout down every rational and sensible policy. Not rebut on rational grounds, just shout it down.

      How on earth can you support a party that several times says “no carbon tax” then introduces one and then bizarrely claims a mandate for it. Gillard is a liar, and so is Swan and Wong. They are a disgrace to the Australian people.

    • Rosie says:

      08:40am | 08/03/11

      iansand

      Blame everyone else but “bring along bad kama to this great land Julia Gillard.”

      You and the likes of you are deluded like the woman that you admire so much for having the balls to lie to the people she represents and with no outstanding achievements but to shaft her leader to take his place.

      Great article Sophia and they said the coalition wouldn’t do well in the polls because our PM was compared to Gadaffi not as a murderer but a deluded leader who thinks that even on the verge of a civil war the people still loved him.

      Gillard is now saying she doesn’t care about the polls, the woman knows she has no choice and will continue to be “Alice” living in Wonderland!

      Obama may find her outstanding but the polls has said something different. Even Rudd is better than her as preferred PM in the Polls.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:41am | 08/03/11

      @ian   http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx

      This is more information than I can find on what the carbon tax will acutlally mean for Austalia. I am not advocating this polity or trying to say that it is foolproof, but it should be discussed.

      Last night CH10 news (and it happens repeatedly on any given channel) queried the carbon tax and Tony made a comment about Gillard before going on to start saying “our direct action plan….” he was cut off and the story contined about his response to Gillard. This is a prime example of what Sophie is getting at.

      EVERYONE is focused on people’s reactions to people at the moment. The Lie, the Greens, Bob Brown, Gaye Kelly. How is Tony supposed to get his policy across when the mainstream media is not interested in telling the masses what it actually is?

    • iansand says:

      10:23am | 08/03/11

      Oh.  You mean the plan that will fund a reduction scheme from the consolidated revenue magic pudding, but will not be a new tax.  THAT PLAN.  Is that the one that Malcolm could find an economist to support?

      I would have more respect for Mr Abbott if he reverted to “climate change is crap”.

      ZSRenn has entered a florid phase.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:39am | 08/03/11

      Ian, that may be true. I encourage you to talk about that then (sans sarcasm) and people will listen. I for one would love to see a punch counterpunch on both policies with no comparison to the other or the politics of the other. Perhaps written by a duo of the party rep and a climate scientist that supports that hypothesis. I am average Joe - I need is spelled out and compared right in front of me. I need less of this he said she said bullshit.

      The comments should be moderated to respectfully worded genuine query on the policy and a representative of the authors (if not them themselves) should offer feedback.

      If we all focussed on that kind of conversation we would certainly get a whole lot further.

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:19am | 08/03/11

      Obviously we have one Member of Parliament that reads the punch!

    • Faz says:

      06:22am | 08/03/11

      Strewth Sophie, I thought, for a fleeting second, that you were going to tell us all how comparing Julia to Gadaffi was a bad thing to do because it didn’t ‘address the concern’ it ‘shot the critic’.

      But no, it’s another ‘do as I say, not as I do’ moment.

    • TimB says:

      07:48am | 08/03/11

      Sophie’s comment addressed the concern:

      It addresses the concern that Julia is out of touch with the Australian people on a very big issue.

    • Faz says:

      10:40am | 08/03/11

      Amazing Tim.

      Julia’s out of touch on a ‘big issue’ like Gadaffi who is murdering his citizens right now? The guy is actually ‘shooting his critics’ with real bullets and Gillard’s like him?

      That’s the concern?

    • Christian Real says:

      08:34pm | 08/03/11

      Julia may be out of touch with some of the Australian people Tim B,but not all of the Australian people like you falsely claim

    • MarK says:

      12:12am | 09/03/11

      I agree with you Christian.

      TimB’s assessment was crude and obviously full of hyperbole.

      It is more like 89-93% that she has lost touch with.

      She has the lying ranga brigade and the deluded I sound like Gadaffi cadre well and truly on side. The “anything it takes brigade” have have jumped ship but. Last I heard is that they still had to face their mummy at Christmas and blatant porkies caught on camera was a road to far.

    • Steve Smith says:

      08:41am | 09/03/11

      Sophie’s comment did not address any corncern Tim B, it shows that like you she is out of touch with reality.
      The derogatory name calling she used in our Australian parliament is totally unacceptable, and she should stand down and resign from our Parliament
      The fact is, that Tony Abbott has not the decency, integrity or respect for our Parliament,  otherwise he would not have condoned the derogatory comments and remarks that she made against an elected Prime Minister, and against the Office of Prime Minister.
      It clearly also shows his failure as a Leader to contain the radical misfits in his Opposition party.

    • TimB says:

      09:50am | 09/03/11

      @ Chrsitian, what MarK said. She’s out of touch with a large majority. Just because you blindly follow Labor’s every word, doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

      @ Steve

      1. Sophie did not call Julia a “name”

      2.  You don’t have any say in what is or isn’t acceptable in Parliament.

      3. If you do want to apply your standards to Parliament, prepare for a whole host of Labor MP’s getting kicked out too.

      4. Get off your high horse.

      I always love it when the Left try to take the moral high ground.

    • Steve Smith says:

      12:20pm | 09/03/11

      Tim B
      Well if comparing the Prime Minister with a dictator like Gaddafi is not using a derogatory name,what is it in the Liberal cover up name calling handbook?
      Tim B,
      You might like to sugercoat the fact ,but the truth is Sophie and some of those other radical right wing nuts from the far right, should not be in our Parliament.

    • TimB says:

      01:06pm | 09/03/11

      It’s not a name, it’s a comparison.

      Gadaffi is delusional. Gillard is delusional. All true.

      That’s was it, no more to it than that.  It’s very simple, try to comprehend it if you can.

      And she was voted in by her electorate wasn’t she? So yes she should be in Parliament.

      You personally don’t get to decide who is in or out of parliament. As you like to say, that would be a dictatorship- in this case under you.

    • pete says:

      06:35am | 08/03/11

      For goodness sake Sophie,  We all know that politics 101 is learning how to blatantly lie and shrug it off when caught.  Stop rabbiting on about it ,your parties rant on carbon tax is unbelievably unbelievable.  You guys were in favour of it remember.  what politicians promise during elections hold about as much water as a wire mesh waterbag with the electorate.

      One day, we will be pleasantly surprised and find an opposition member not opposing but actually trying to promote a workable alternative

    • TimB says:

      07:52am | 08/03/11

      “For goodness sake Sophie,  We all know that politics 101 is learning how to blatantly lie and shrug it off when caught”

      Is that so? Did you know that last year or were you one of the rabid leftoids sticking the boot into Tony Abbott after his “Gospel Truth” interview?

      Judge the lie on the result, not the lie itself. Gillard’s was an election stealing whopper.

    • pete says:

      10:32am | 08/03/11

      1, I have known for years the difference between core promises = bullshit and non core promises = total bullshit
      2,  I’m not a leftoid I dont like any of them
      3,  bullshit is bullshit no matter what the result
      4, how do we know Tony was telling the truth about his lies, So monty pythonish isnt it

      I just get fed up with all of them trying to take the moral high ground on telling the truth when they all lie to us.  Why ,is your bullshit meter broken?

    • Reg says:

      10:39am | 08/03/11

      TimmyB in distraction mode, still trying to recover from Tony’s admission that he is not to be trusted when he says something.

      While I’m here Timmy mate, the salient facts about Gadaffi are the violence he is visiting upon his people by turning the army on them. Please bear this in mind when resorting to your highly irrelevant similes, it may help you to a more stable state of mind.

    • Alice of Wonderland says:

      06:00pm | 08/03/11

      TimB would be well advised to get over politicians lying, they all do it. Do you remember Abbott and Medicare, Howard and Afghanistan, all comments made prior to an election. Suck it up Tim and get on with the real issues at hand. I’ve said it before Tim, Gillard DID NOT win the last election based on what she said about a price on Carbon. I’m so sick of these righteous conservatives, for christs sake rAbbott even said himself “I have core promises and non-core promises”  - you expect me to listen and believe what comes out of his mouth. Again Tim, suck it up…Julia is our PM, she will be for some time to come, we will eventually have an ETS, so start getting used to it Tim.

    • TImB says:

      07:56am | 09/03/11

      @ Reg, Julia’s the only one that needs a distraction now. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

      Alice, I don’t care what you said before. You’re wrong then and you’re wrong now.

      Look at the polls. This issue is killing Gillard.

      Had she come clean on it at the election she would have lost. Fact.

      Oh and Tony never said what you claim he said.

      But again. I don’t care if politicians lie. I care about the result of the lie. Medicare had nothing to do with Tony, he was overruled on that. And I have no idea what “Afghanistan lie” you’re referring to.

      Gillard stole the election with her lie. They don’t come much bigger than that.

      Honestly I don’t know how you leftoids live in such a black and white world. Yes that means you too pete.

    • Ironside says:

      06:44am | 08/03/11

      Sophie I don’t disagree with you in relation to the carbon tax, I think it’s a dud which will cost Australian working families a fortune, destroy Australian industry and actually contribute to a rise in world pollution as our relatively clean industries are pushed offshore to countries like china and India.

      However, you cannot complain about Labour attacking the critics of the policy while at the same time defending your use of Gaddafi as a simile for the Prime Minister. You cant have it both ways, either it is a legitimate tactic to play the man and not the ball, or it isn’t. If it is then Labour and the media are right to attack critics of their policy rather than addressing their concerns and you are right to compare the democratically elected (sort of) prime minister of a western nation to a terrorism supporting Arab dictator who is killing his own people. However if its wrong to do that, then its wrong no matter who is saying what.

      The Coalition does not need to use dirty tricks and slurs to win this debate in fact it will only hurt them in the long run, what they need to do is keep asking calm, dispassionate well considered questions and demanding answers that the government wont or cant provide because the policy is a dud, this and only this will convince the majority of Australians to support the cause.

    • jack WWW says:

      06:47am | 08/03/11

      For some odd reason, Sophie, it is enamoured OF…not WITH.
      No further comment

    • PabloD says:

      06:53am | 08/03/11

      The frequency of calls for us to respect the Tea Party movement from various people over the last few weeks is getting disturbing.

      They are a joke with a thin veneer of small government over a hefty dose of xenophobia and evangelical Christianity.

      64% of Tea Party activists think that America’s best years are behind it.

      66% think global warming does not exist or will not have a serious impact.

      57% think George W. Bush was a good President.

      40% think Sarah Palin would also be a good President.

      32% think that violent action against the government could be justified.

      42% want to decrease legal immigration.

      41% believe that gay couples should have no form of legal recognition.

      45% believe that abortion laws should be stricter than they already are.

      59% like Glenn Beck.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:33am | 08/03/11

      And this has what to do with Australians and our politics?

      This is just another poor attempt to demonise the conservative’s here in Australia.

      And once again proves Ms Mirabella’s post!

      PS If you are heading back to the states could you give KK a lift.

    • Jim says:

      07:51am | 08/03/11

      “64% of Tea Party activists think that America’s best years are behind it.

      66% think global warming does not exist or will not have a serious impact.”

      Shame that only 2/3 of Americans understand the truth, isn’t it?!

    • PabloD says:

      08:13am | 08/03/11

      Ummm, I was referring to the 3rd paragraph by Sophie

      “Witness the way the groundswell “Tea Party” movement was wrongly characterised by most of the mainstream media in the US and here as well.  There’s a derisory edge, almost a snigger, whenever the media discuss this significant political movement.”

      And Janet Albrechtson on QandA last night.

      I agree it has nothing to do with Australia, the question is why are Sophie & Janet and others raising it at all, in a demonising or supportive way or not?

    • Rover says:

      08:34am | 08/03/11

      Ms Mirabella was the one who brought up the Tea Party as a credible political movement. So PabloD is entitled to point out the extremism of many of their views, without copping a poorly punctuated rant and a cheap xenophobic shot at someone who was born overseas.

    • Hamish says:

      08:46am | 08/03/11

      PabloD, your post is just a misinformed regurgitation of elitist fear-mongering about the tea party. It’s a grassroots movement which is a hotch potch of many different kinds of people. It actually started as a reaction against excessive government spending and intervention in American’s everyday lives.

      64% of Tea Party activists think that America’s best years are behind it. I would agree with this. America has been in relative decline since the 1980s and many Americans rightly feel their nation’s fundamental values of freedom and liberty or being attacked by ‘big government’ proponents.

      66% think global warming does not exist or will not have a serious impact. This pretty much mirrors opposition to JGillard’s carbon tax, so I’d imagine the numbers are pretty similar in Aus. I assume you also mean human-induced climate change, rather than natural climate change.

      57% think George W. Bush was a good President. He was certainly better than Obama has been so far. Bear in mind this also means that almost half don’t think he was good.

      40% think Sarah Palin would also be a good President. Again, so 60% think she wouldn’t be. So, you basically agree with them I’m assuming?

      32% think that violent action against the government could be justified. And you don’t? So I suppose you’ve got a problem with the rebels in Libya? I guess it all depends on what people think ‘could’ means. I certainly think violence against the government ‘could’ be justified.

      42% want to decrease legal immigration. This is surprisingly low. I’d say it would be higher in Aus.

      41% believe that gay couples should have no form of legal recognition. So 59% do. What’s your problem? Do you think they should or not?

      45% believe that abortion laws should be stricter than they already are. Again, over half think they shouldn’t.

      59% like Glenn Beck. I don’t generally agree with Glenn Beck but he’s way more entertaining than the bland political commentators we get over here. I think he’s pretty likeable.

      I’d say all the stats you’ve managed to come up with suggest the tea party actually represents a real plurality of views. Wouldn’t you agree?

    • Jack says:

      08:47am | 08/03/11

      Also served with a healthy side of astroturfing. The only ‘groundswell’ is from the money poured in by the RNC.

      Good work trying to align yourself with Republicans though, Sophie. Quick, stoptheboats.

    • james milton says:

      09:05am | 08/03/11

      Maybe teabaggers still feel betrayed by Obama bowing to Muslim leaders, when he wouldn’t even do so for the queen.

    • Bart says:

      09:10am | 08/03/11

      What’s your point PabloD?

      So, they’re Christian patriots. What would you have them be, Atheist one-world socialists?

      I don’t think you ‘progressive’ types realise how weak and few in number you actually are away from your inner city experiment factories. If Progressives have any power, it’s because they trick the lamestream media and enough ‘poor’ people into supporting them.

    • PabloD says:

      09:45am | 08/03/11

      @Hamish - The research is research - not misinformed facts.

      Source: NY Times/CBS News Poll. This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,580 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone April 5-12, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of people who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement were interviewed, for a total of 881 interviews. The results were then weighted in proportion to the adult population. The margin of error for the sample of Tea Party supporters is three points. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.)

      And I love how the word elitist has now become a pejorative, particularly when it is often pointed at the first black, son of a broken marriage to an immigrant father who put himself through university…surely if measured objectively Obama is the very embodiment of the American dream, not the product of elitism?

      @ Bart Nothing wrong with the Tea Party being Christian or patriots, that is what most Americans voters or politicians would claim, be they democrats or republicans.  The Tea Party’s claims to be a grass roots movement with a stated platform of small government, less taxes…but in fact they have a much broader social agenda with some bizarrely secretive funding and support from the big end of town.  I would be less dismissive if they established themselves as a proper party with disclosure on funding and policy, rather than being a sideshow to the GOP.

      I am not sure what you mean by me being a progressive or reading the lamestream media?  I am not happy with any political party, or movement that mis-represents itself left or right…and isn’t this site that you are reading lamestream?

    • Tea Party Evolution says:

      09:46am | 08/03/11

      68% of tea party supporters believe that earth is less than 10,000 years old and that man walked the earth with dinosaurs.

    • Hamish says:

      10:09am | 08/03/11

      PabloD, my issue wasn’t with the research, I didn’t even mention it, it was with your interpretation of the findings. My point was that you are attempting to paint all members of the tea party as dangerous, violent and chauvenistic when the data you present actually suggests otherwise. For instance, I was really quite surprsied 60% felt that Palin wouldn’t be a good President.

      Did you actually read my post?

    • PabloD says:

      10:10am | 08/03/11

      And sorry I meant to add, the point isn’t the validity or integrity or thoughts of the Tea Party or its members,  it is, why are they being often raised in Australia at the moment?

      Don’t get me wrong, as you can tell I am interested in them, and how they relate to American politics, but I cannot see any connection to Australia. Is there one I cannot see?

      Progressively and elitistically yours (apparently, even though I hate latte and chardonnay)

    • AdamC says:

      10:14am | 08/03/11

      PabloD, Hamish wasn’t questioning the source of your stats, he was questioning your interpretation of them. And he nailed it.

      Surely you must now accept that those figures actually do not support your prejudiced view of the Tea Party movement?

      (Actually, I find the 45% abortion number quite bizarre. Isn’t this supposed to be, in part, the conservative right of the Republican Party. Don’t they all want to toughen current abortion laws?)

    • PabloD says:

      10:28am | 08/03/11

      @Hamish yes I did stop reading at “misinformed regurgitation of elitist fear-mongering” 

      Your comments are reasonable but I did not position the facts in any way particularly not to “paint all members of the tea party as dangerous, violent and chauvenistic”

      I just put the facts there to speak for themselves.  They aren’t that strong either way.

      Again the point is, what is the relevance to Australia?  I would love to know.

    • James1 says:

      10:38am | 08/03/11

      “40% think Sarah Palin would also be a good President.”

      So the majority of them do have common sense.  Wonderful.  I actually find myself rather sympathetic to some of what the Tea Party says.  Their call to cut spending and implement austerity measures is much needed, although I do believe the US also needs to dump the Bush tax cuts if they are going to get out of this with any economic credibility at all.

      My issue is with the support for Sarah Palin.  There is a long, and vibrant history of intellectualism in conservative politics (cue lefty scoffing), and if we leave this behind it will only result in bad things for the conservative movement.  The type of anti-intellectualism she espouses (and the vacuous soundbites she puts forth instead) and her supporters lap up is anathema to the development of good policy that conforms to the philosophical foundations of conservativism.  Can anyone imagine modern conservative thought without John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke laying its foundations?  Or Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman?  There are huge risks inherent in the sort of anti-intellectual populism we see in the US at the moment, and the fact that 60% of Tea Partiers see this makes me a happy man.

    • James1 says:

      10:44am | 08/03/11

      Adam, on the abortion and related matters of conscience, most of the Tea Partiers I know, and apparently many of them more generally, are true libertarians, in that they do not think that the state has any right to interfere with a person’s liberty to live as they see fit.  As such, it seems that these results are perfectly in line with libertarian principles and philosophy.  Those stats have massively increased my affinity with the average Tea Partier.

    • Hamish says:

      10:50am | 08/03/11

      PabloD, I think the tea party is an expression of the fact that everyday Americans feel they are not terribly well represented by the media (except arguably by Fox News), their elected representatives and either of the major parties. In that sense, I think elements of the right in Australia probably feel the same way. There has already been a schism on the left in Australia splitting the Green vote from the ALP’s and the ALP is having massive issues dealing with this from both an electoral and philosophical standpoint (carbon tax is a major example).

      I think Mirabella et al are attempting to ensure a similar schism doesn’t occur for the right, by making the sort of statements she does in her article.

    • Reg says:

      10:56am | 08/03/11

      @ZSRenn “And this has what to do with Australians and our politics? “

      Ask Sophia she’s the one, along with her hangers-on who are trying to wring what-ever they can from the truculent tea-baggers. I’m sure Sophia would love to be labeled the Glenn Beck of Australia….. NOT.

      ZSRenn is skimming again.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:35pm | 08/03/11

      @ZSRenn Your Sophie brought The Tea Party up, didn’t you read the article? She obviously has no shame in being bed-fellows with these ignorant, gun toting, racists even if you do. By the way what does your cousin MC Renn think of the Tea Party?

    • Peter says:

      07:05am | 08/03/11

      All Julia Gillard can say in response to her carbon tax or broken promise is “Tony Abbotts scare campaign” “Abbotts fear campaign”  She seems to think we’re all idiots. That will be the reason for her slump in polls, “Abbotts scare campaign” Abbotts fear campaign”  Yet it was OK and acceptable for her workchoices scare and fear campaign that worked with the backing of a cashed up Union. Interestingly most of the damage according to the polls is about her personally more than even the carbon tax. Time for her to take responsibility for your own actions which gave Abbott such a free kick in the first place.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      07:17am | 08/03/11

      “tone” of the debate and take offence at any slightly colourful criticisms. , mmm lets see if I can set the tone lol.when I was a kid and stuffed up, I was called a dickhead, still get called that from time to time,
      Msss Gillard, you’ve stuffed up bigtime by lying and bringing in this new tax rip off, so I guess that makes you the dickhead of the day, if this doesn’t get posted, won’t really surprise me but worth the shot to say what I really think anyway , can’t wait till the lefties start lol…opps, I see Teddy boy already has

    • Tedd says:

      08:02pm | 08/03/11

      Don’t worry Brain - I agree with you.  The timing and the vagueness are an abysmal situation.  Pity Malcolm wasn’t at the helm, then there would be some decent meat in the debating bone.

    • Reg says:

      07:18am | 08/03/11

      Sophie allow me to correct you.

      The practice is to shoot the messenger, the bearer of bad news, which I presume you think you’re bearing. This is supposed to rally the guys so none of them have to become the dead carriers of the news of failure.

      I won’t list any more than your first FAILURE, the one of failing to get elected. As the bearer of bad news you and your leader would not have seen the next election. Add to that the dreadfully irrelevant Gadaffi comparisons and your political discrimination is shot to ribbons. Here, have a shoe…. smile.

    • Flexo says:

      07:24am | 08/03/11

      None of my comments were posted yesterday even though they were relatively tamed compared to what was published. I will try again as I believe that for evil Julia to triumph, is when good people sit back and do nothing.

      Lets face it Julia Gillard is a God awful PM.

      The polls today show that the ALP is in a terrible poistion and that the MAJORITY of Australians do not want a carbon tax.

      The only decent thing for the PM to do is take this to the polls. For all the ALP support and spin by the likes of TChong and friends, none of them dare to suggest taking this to a double dissolution election for they know Labor will be wiped out of existance.

    • Jay says:

      07:28am | 08/03/11

      One thing that Julia Gillard said in Parliament which is correct, and that is that the conservatives have lived off the iniatives of the Labor Party. The GST was a Labor initiative until Bob Hawke pressed the chicken switch. Howard swept into power and reaped the benefits of Paul Keatings work in cultivating Asia as a market whilst the conservatives in the 70’s and 80’s wanted Australia to live off the sheep’s back. Whitlam brought Australia into the 20th Century by withdrawing from Vietnam,introducing universal healthcare, funding the Arts, opening a dialogue with China and bringing environmental issues to the fore. Yes he made mistakes, but the conservatives ensured that he was kicked out so they could try and restore the status quo, which I might add failed miserably.  John Howard reaped the benefits of previous Govt’s, and despite his life long Opposition to Medicare, he was unable to dismantle it. He did however dismantle workers rights, and tried unsuccessfully to introduce workchoices. Sitting in office with a 20 billion dollar surplus and doing nothing with it. No vision to develop our much needed infrastructure, and now we are paying the price. This whole carbon tax debate will cost Labor power, but down the track people will look back and appreciate that they got it right. Sophie Mirabella will be forgotten, not that she has actually done anything since she entered Parliament in 2004 other than support Workchoices,pay increases for workers and pensioners. Labor seems to have ideas for the future where as the conservatives are happy to live in the here and now and have no vision for the future.

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:29am | 08/03/11

      How nice would it be to have that $20 billion now and not a $50 billion dollar debt?

      Thanks for the history lesson.  Slightly one eyed and sort of like the Spanish describing Cook as a pirate and a brigand in their version of history but a history lesson no less

      Now could you please tell us just how we are going to benefit from this tax and how it is going to do anything to reduce Global Emissions?
      . :

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      09:46am | 08/03/11

      You left out the part about where a number of the major Keating/Hawke reforms were based on advice commissioned when Howard was Treasurer in the Fraser Government. And that these were supported by Howard and his party when in opposition. The ALP fought Hewson then Howard tooth and nail on the GST. But I guess you get that with hero worship.

    • Skatman says:

      07:37am | 08/03/11

      Bollocks, this is nothing but a load of hypocritical rubbish coming from someone with absolutely no credibility what so ever. Sophie, you only mentioned ‘massive tax’ three times in this article, pick your game up, your boss wont be happy. Australia now has its very own Sarah Palin, well done Sophie, keep up the scaremongering…fear, fear and more fear. If your views are a reflection of the people of Indi, then that is one area that I never ever want to visit, unless I ever have a craving to squeal like a pig!

    • james milton says:

      09:39am | 08/03/11

      Fear is justified with Gillard at the helm. Rats are leaving the ship and the public are well aware of this, hence the pathetically poor poll numbers.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:43am | 08/03/11

      Has the whole country gone mad?
      How can a PM or government loose support for a proposal?
      For any tax to be imposed on the people, it surely has to be passed by the parliament. No one party has control of both lower and upper houses at this time. Added to which no one has any real idea as to who will pay what.

      This whole saga is a classic example of divison politics, people divide is a people doomed.

    • Christian Real says:

      03:41pm | 08/03/11

      John A Neve
      Not the whole Country is mad John, only the narrow minded,tunnell visioned Liberals who are easily lead like sheep by the master of deception, Tony Abbott.

    • Reg says:

      07:48am | 08/03/11

      F****** amazing that Sophie chooses to address her public in terms sarcastic.

      When the f*** did sarcasm become political speak where you say the opposite of what you intend? When you start talking sense again Sophie I’ll come back and check what you have to say, until then you’re irrelevant.

      I would also hope the speaker of the house would call you to order for using intentionally deceptive language such as that little lot. Especially as your call is one of addressing the issue which you then present is terms opposite. Not very smart madam, even for a Victorian.

    • Jim says:

      07:53am | 08/03/11

      “When the f*** did sarcasm become political speak where you say the opposite of what you intend? ” - I’d say it started around 2007, Reg.

    • TimB says:

      08:23am | 08/03/11

      lol Reg is asking others to speak sense.

      Kind of ironic when the rest of us have trouble intepreting many of Reg’s posts.

      As for deceptive language…how deceptive does Reg rate “There will be no Carbon tax”?

    • Jay Santos says:

      08:33am | 08/03/11

      “...When you start talking sense again Sophie I’ll come back and check what you have to say, until then you’re irrelevant…”

      Hello Kettle.

      Just keep believing what you want to Reg.

    • Aitch B says:

      08:51am | 08/03/11

      @Reg

      And I would hope that the speaker of the house would call Gillard to order for a) never answering a legitimate question from the opposition and b) reverting to personal abuse in lieu of said answer.

      Not much chance of that, I suspect…........

    • Tory Fan says:

      10:44am | 08/03/11

      I’m amazed the comment passed moderation.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:02pm | 08/03/11

      Apparently you can say Fuck on the punch without the childish star thingy’s as long as your not saying “Get Fucked” and then your comment wont be posted

    • HappyCynic says:

      07:50am | 08/03/11

      The problem with this whole stupid argument is if you say anything you get shot down from some nutter or another.

      So here are a few interesting facts about the actual cost to the economy of a price on carbon (bear in mind I’m not stating any opinion, just releasing a few facts)

      1.  Most Australian industries do not compete internationally and we do not have many carbon intensive industries either.  Less than 10% of GDP does come from these industries.

      2.  Most high-emissions trade-exposed industries will still be profitable and internationally competitive even if they pay a carbon price of $35 per tonne without any subsidy.

      There’s a whole lot more here, (http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/026_energy_report_22_april_2010.pdf) I’d love to hear some legitimate and researched contradictions to these but I’m not going to hold my breath.

    • Richard says:

      03:24pm | 08/03/11

      Dude, its a cost of living issue. How high are power prices going to get before even you start to wonder where it will end?

    • persephone says:

      07:23pm | 08/03/11

      Richard

      power prices are going to rise anyway.

      At least under this package people will be compensated for this.

    • MarK says:

      12:07am | 09/03/11

      HAHAHAHAAHA….already pers is reduced to “at least under this package”

      When you are a courageous champion of Doing Godd and stuff like that dressed in your no petroleum based superhero outfit i would have thought you could muster more enthusiasm than “at least”

      Sounds like the concessions to this dog of a policy thought bubble are beginning to warm up.

      Sounds like this government has lost its way.

      At least…....LAWL

    • Peter says:

      08:00am | 08/03/11

      Sophie also fails to mention that scare campaigns were the basis of Karl Rove tactics for President George W Bush.

      Howard’s tactics were also similar and at its most extreme we had Tampa.

      The Liberal Party are as guilty as any other political party - the author seems to have failed to mention that: hardly surprising.

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:01am | 08/03/11

      @Reg
      Top effort, now that’s irony: “political speak where you say the opposite of what you intend?”

      Is that anything like “No Carbon Tax”? and subsequent to the election “you’re given me a mandate for a carbon tax”.

      You couldn’t make it up!

    • Kathryn says:

      08:18am | 08/03/11

      Pot, Kettle, perhaps?

      It’s not an Obama tactic. It’s a political tactic as old as the hills. When you don’t want to talk about the issue you talk about the process. And you do it all the time - not just Liberals, you personally. You’re doing it with this post.

      It seems to be all Australian politicians do anymore. Not even the bitchslap of a hung parliament can make you give the country the substance and leadership we so desperately crave.

    • Andrew says:

      08:41am | 08/03/11

      One thing I do like about Obama is that he doesn’t hurl cheap insults at his opponents, yet is still an effective politician. I for one would like you - and many other Australian politicians - to learn from him in this respect.

    • Rosie says:

      10:11am | 08/03/11

      Obama should do his homework before saying that Gillard has a huge chunk of Australians supporting her.

      Obama being diplomatic to a PM that is a big time liar and Gillard lapping it all up is pathetic!

    • Andrew says:

      10:30am | 08/03/11

      @Rosie: I don’t see how what you said is related to what I said. Also, I think you might have unrealistic expectations about politicians. But then, maybe I do, too. smile

    • Malleeringneck says:

      08:48am | 08/03/11

      The carbon tax is about Labor gaining the support of the Greens.
      Her deputy, Brown, was right there in the picture when they announced it.
      Now he is quiet letting Gillard get all the flak.

    • Laurie says:

      08:49am | 08/03/11

      Sophie is right. This is about “doing something” and winning elections. The policy is risky for Australia and will cause significant hardship but who cares. As long as the Labor/green government can win then that is all that matters. There is going to be some pieces to pick up after this lot.  Much of the comment on Sophie has been in the same tone as that thrown by the Government. if you cant sell the policy then make the opposition look bad.

    • Dave Sag says:

      09:04am | 08/03/11

      Okay Sophie, so let’s address the concerns.

      1)  We, the tax-payers, pay outrageous amounts of money to highly polluting industries, via al manner of subsidies, fuel-tax-exemptions, and straight up gifts, to burn increasingly rare fossil fuels which is has been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, are warming the planet, to very potentially dangerous, perhaps even disastrous levels.

      2) Every country on Earth with the ability to do so is pouring huge investment into “low-carbon” aka “clean-tech” both within the private sector and the public sector.  Even here in Australia we are spending money (not enough alas) on renewable energy.  The amount of solar energy being generated by the human race has roughly doubled every 2 years since the early 1970s, yet the amount of energy being consumed by the human race as not doubled thrice in that time.  If you plot the data on a graph you see that, optimistically, we will satisfy all of the world’s power needs with solar energy by the mid 2020s, or pessimistically, the mid 2030s.

      3) The government has a responsibility to manage what will be a massive economic transition, as polluting industries become economically uncompetative.  This is simply inevitable.

      4) The faster we manage this transition, the less disruptive will be the change. We are the highest per-capita source of carbon emissions in the world, and we need to become the lowest. Else who will buy our products?  The world is moving to ‘green procurement’ and Australia is being left behind already.

      5) Every day of inaction increases the chance that some major, disastrous, climate-tipping-point may occur.  There is both an economic and a moral imperative to act and act fast.  We need massive investment in renewable energy just to compete with countries like the USA, China, and the European nations.  Unless we want to be a net importer of electricity by 2025, we’d better get better at making it here.

      6) Sophie, your political party tends to a) deny climate change is happening, b) deny that, even it is is happening, it’s anything to do with human activity, an c) have proposed a ridiculous and highly expensive plan to buy in international offsets and to pay the polluters to buy them, as a solution to this.  While the idea certainly would reduce emissions, it would do so without providing any incentives for people to reduce their own power use, move to low-energy devices, insulate their homes and buildings, install solar systems and so forth.  You plan doesn’t help finance large scale solar-thermal generators, or improve the nation’s crumbling power-grid.  You plan just sends our tax-money overseas. (Note I am not opposed to international offsets and do believe they have an important part to play in any emissions management plan, but they ought not be the complete focus of your strategy. Also note there are not enough CDM credits being generated in the world to offset Australian’s emissions)

      So, Sophie, rather than just screeching about how those Tea Party people are really just nice concerned citizens and not the Fox-News rallied rabble of ageing wasps they appear to be, and how let- down you feel by having a politician go back on an election promise she made (was it core, or non-core I wonder?) how about you focus on the real concerns and tell us what your government would do to manage this most urgent economic transition.  That’s my concern.

    • Cleo Basset says:

      09:42am | 08/03/11

      An excellent and reasoned response!  I know Mirabella’s lackeys are monitoring this blog today, and ask that they copy this and put it on top of the pile she gets to flick through.

    • Jim says:

      09:44am | 08/03/11

      Wow….just, wow. Dave Sag…you need to put down the Rising Tide newsletter and get some facts in your head.

      1. No tax payer dollars go to any subsidies whatsoever. What they get is a reduced price as the government takes a smaller slice in fuel taxes. A smaller slice of a much bigger pie is still a lot more pie than the average tax payer will ever have to dish up! I doubt you even pay tax.

      2. That whole paragraph is as fanciful as a Harry Potter book, but much less believable.

      3. Government has a responsibility to its own people first and foremost.

      4. Skewed data - we export most of our coal, so technically we are the highest ‘source’ per capita, source being the operative word here. We are far from being anywhere near the highest producer of carbon emmissions.

      5. Another ridiculous paragraph. We have the worlds largest resources of uranium and thorium; why do you clowns keep blocking it’s use??

      6. There is growing evidence that AGW is a myth, given backing by world corps that want us to trade in carbon so they can become stinking rich. No evidence of warming, and certainly no evidence of carbon being the cause.

      So how about YOU stop screeching, have a shower and get a job…you’ll need one soon when our living costs triple under the carbon tax.

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:12am | 08/03/11

      @Jim

      Care to cite the “tripling of costs” under a carbon tax?  That figure smells like bullsh*t to me.  I’m not saying things won’t be more expensive, they will, but the increase is more like 1.5% not 300%.  And yes I’ll happily provide a source if you want one but first you provide me your source.

    • AdamC says:

      10:19am | 08/03/11

      “1)  We, the tax-payers, pay outrageous amounts of money to highly polluting industries, via al manner of subsidies, fuel-tax-exemptions, and straight up gifts ... “

      We seem to keep hearing about these taxpayer subsidies and gifts. What are they? (And a fuel tax exemption is not exactly a ‘gift’; it is a tax concession.)

    • Andrew says:

      09:11am | 08/03/11

      Also, you didn’t think Belinda Neal’s words to you in parliament acceptable, so why would you think what you said about the Prime Minister is? For my money, they are about equally insulting.

    • David says:

      09:23am | 08/03/11

      I hate Tea Parties.

      Why can’t we have a Put On A BBQ, Spike A Keg And Chill For A Bit Party instead?

      Now that’s a movement the whole world needs right now.

    • Richard says:

      03:28pm | 08/03/11

      Tea Parties are fantastic! So dignified, such lovely cake. How uncouth are you to prefer BBQ’s and Keg Parties over a delightful little Tea Party?

    • Helen says:

      09:26am | 08/03/11

      A Kevin Murphy of Albury has a letter today in, uh, another media outlet: “DID the Liberals have an official ceremony to celebrate the handing over of the baton from Wilson Tuckey to Sophie Mirabella?”

      LOL, as they say.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:46pm | 08/03/11

      He should have said ‘iron bar’ instead of ‘baton’.

    • Cranky ol' Bugga says:

      09:29am | 08/03/11

      Either the so-called electorate has a short memory or is extremely fickle!
      It was not that long ago that everyone was nodding their heads agreeing that we would have to suffer higher prices and even (gasp!) have a reduction in living standards to make substantial cuts in greenhouse gasses and so on.
      That’s apparently so last year now, and unrestrained self-interest and greed is back on the agenda, fanned by one-eyed ratbags such as Sophie (Hyacinth) Mirabella.
      Fortunately I will have departed the earth by the time global warming kicks in with a vengance, leaving the uncomfortable consequences to the likes of Sophie’s children and yours.
      How I would enjoy hearing those kids say “What did you do about this **** in the olden days mum!!”

    • Ash says:

      09:30am | 08/03/11

      What the hell is a ‘white herring’?

    • Kelly says:

      09:32am | 08/03/11

      I refuse to let Labor (and the press gallery) bully me and try to make me look undignified because I have sensible questions and concerns about the PM’s carbon tax.

      Of course Labor can’t answer my questions. They have no choice but to dismiss the questions and concerns of ordinary Australians because they haven’t yet worked out the details of their own policy! Who will be compensated and for how much and for how long, what are the costings, what are the costs to businesses? What are the unintended consequences of this tax?

      It’s easier for Labor to bully us to keep quiet than answer these questions. Oops, I almost forgot, they haven’t got the answers so smarter to bully and demonise us.

    • Stephen says:

      09:32am | 08/03/11

      Why introduce a piece on a carbon tax with whinging about progressives & the Tea Party?  In the US the Tea Party is derided on the left, middle and right, as apart from whining they have no answers.

      They are a movement articulating pain being suffered by a white middle class stuck in the 1980’s suffering losses real and imagined.  Comparisons with One Nation come to mind.

      You also incorrectly say thay are against excessive government spending.  Thats not the case, they are against spending money on anything they dont agree with - but don’t touch their own.  In their sights are mainly goverment programs to assist the poor, protect the environment and other “socialist” programs.  Not surprisingly their own entitelments are always out of bounds.- They deserve it - no one else does.  Not a movement I would be using to introduce an article on an important debate.

      I would listen a little more to what you had to say of you didnt patronise us with a lecture on politicla tolerance.

    • Richard says:

      03:21pm | 08/03/11

      Pro tip Steve: its generally advisable to have some clue about the topic you decide to write about, otherwise you sound completely misinformed and gullible.

      The Tea Party is a libertarian movement that champions the free market, limited government and the constitution. They certainly oppose excessive government spending, you cannot accurately dispute that. They are a movement articulating the pain of being financially bankrupt by a profligate government (both Dems AND Reps) whilst seeing all the corrupt wall street banksters and executives get bailed out by their cronies in Washington. I can understand their pain, and to a large extent I share it.
      You have no idea about the Tea Party, your One Nation red herring has nothing to do with it, nor your baseless assertion that they are in favour of “their own entitlements”, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You just oppose it because its cool for all the young sheep to snigger and denigrate the Tea Party these days.

      You’re allowed to think for yourself you know Stevie boy? Don’t buy everything you’ve been sold by the media my friend.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:51pm | 08/03/11

      The photo of Sara Palin was obviously placed there deliberately because she is the only politician who makes Smokin’ Sophie look intelligent in comparison.

    • Catching up says:

      09:42am | 08/03/11

      Yes the poll is bad, but that was expected.  When you have captains of industry calling for the nastiness to stop and get on with the business of putting a price on carbon to bed as quickly as possible.

      How long can Mr, Abbott keep going around the country, ranting “liar liar”.  At some stage most people will tire of hearing this.

      When the public turn their attention to the substance of the announcement, they will start asking themselves if a price on carbon is needed, and is this the best way to go.  There, I would imagine be a closer look at Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leaders plan.  Ranting “liar liar” will not hide that his plan is found wanting by many.

      Much of the scare campaign at this time is not based of facts.  In the next few weeks, as the Climate Change Committee works through it agenda, we will be given the data that we need to make an opinion of the proposed carbon pricing.  This is very unlikely to support the scare tactics that are being foisted on the public now.  It will be similar to the previous PM plan but personally I hope, not so much given away to the polluters.

      The final aim, as many believe to use less power is not strictly true. The aim is for our power to be produced by carbon free processes.  In the short term, until alternative sources of power is in place, we need to restrict our use of power produced by coal.

      If coal can be burnt clean, it may play a part in the future.  Putting a price on carbon will encourage the coal industry to do the research for this to occur.

      There will, I believe about 1000 companies that will be paying the cost of carbon pricing.  It is not coming out of the ordinary taxpayers pocket.  When the GST was introduced, the GNP went up around 4%, even allowing for the compensation given to taxpayers and industries.  It is suggested that the price on carbon will be around 1%, even without compensation. The wealthy may pay more, but the majority of Australians, in a well planned scheme will not.

      The Opposition’s plan is very expensive, will cost the tax payer and is believed will not work. The money has to come from somewhere, unless Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader has found the magic pudding or his god will come to his aid with a repeat of the miracle of the loaves and fishes.  Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader is relying on methods of reducing carbon that are not at this staged, scientifically proven.  Mr. Turnbull said on QandA that there will be a cost, no matter the scheme.

      People will or should become concerned that Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader is will to place Australian Industry in danger because of his plan to dump the propped price on carbon, even if it takes a couple of elections.  He will leave industry with no security, and us years behind in moving to a carbon free economy.

      Another myth being spread through the community is that no other country has done anything, that we are going it alone.  This is not true.  There are 30 countries, and 10 states in the USA have similar schemes.  The UK has been addressing the problems since the days of Thatcher, a lady not known for wasteful spending.
      China, it is true, is not looking at carbon pricing, but do they need to do this to cut back on carbon.  There are stories that China is beginning to address the problem, even if it is to clean up their smog.  The coal power stations are supposed to be the state of the ark, but they are looking at alternatives methods of producing energy.

      Can anyone remember how the polls treated the ex PM Howard when he introduced the GST.

    • Jim says:

      05:29pm | 08/03/11

      “Yes the poll is bad, but that was expected.  When you have captains of industry calling for the nastiness to stop and get on with the business of putting a price on carbon to bed as quickly as possible.”

      OK, I stopped reading there. Why is you mob automatically assume that no one can make a decision on their own? You are insulting every single person who does not want this tax by flippantly suggesting the only reason they are against it is because someone told them to thnk that way.

      Maybe that’s the way Labor/Greens work, you know…solidarity and all that crap. But for the majority of people, they have a brain and they use it!

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      09:56am | 08/03/11

      Isn’t it strange that Labor insists it’s too early to talk about the potential negative impacts of this tax, because nobody knows how it will be implemented yet, but with their next breath, try to tell us about the wonderful benefits this tax will have - jobs, less global warming, etc?

      Surely, if the details are so fuzzy that the negative impacts can’t be estimated, then we can’t estimate the positives, either?

      As usual, Labor is treated the voter as a schmuck.

    • Paul C says:

      09:57am | 08/03/11

      Ooh, look! Sophie’s talking shit again. Yawn.

    • Erica says:

      10:21am | 08/03/11

      Oh great input Paul C. this is why your side is plummeting in the polls, losing all credibility and looking like petulant children that can’t continue an intelligent conversation. You have nothing to contribute so you just attack, spewing verbal garbage like vitriol. So Labour, So 10 years ago. Grow Up.

    • bobw says:

      01:31pm | 08/03/11

      @Erica:  You don’t need to have a “side” to concur in the thrust of Paul’s assessment.

    • Helen says:

      10:09am | 08/03/11

      the Warmists have been playing shoot the messenger for years now. They know they can’t win on facts , hence the constant bleating over “Settled Science”. Anyoe taht does any research for them selves will (unless they’re totally retarded) become a Skeptic. It’s the rational intelligent position. Why do the commies not understand that? propaganda no longer works. We don’t beleive anything the MSM or the Left have to say about anything anymore. I’ve told my green voting friends they are no longer welcome at my house.

    • bobw says:

      11:55am | 08/03/11

      Is this supposed to be satirical?

    • Warren says:

      12:02pm | 08/03/11

      Wow. I’ll bet those commies are really upset about not being invited around.

    • Warren says:

      12:25pm | 08/03/11

      @bobw. I don’t think One Nation Lite do satire.

    • bobw says:

      04:25pm | 08/03/11

      @Warren:  True.  There’s just something about the frenzied recitation of generic Palin-esque gripes that always sets off alarm bells.  Sadly, the assumpion that no one could actually subscribe to what Helen has written is probably misguided.

    • stephen says:

      10:32am | 08/03/11

      “quote

      “But when the protests grew louder and more passionate, the diversionary tactic then employed was to raise a white herring debate about “civility in political exchange”.  Once again, instead of discussing the criticisms, it was time to “tut, tut” and lament the tone of the debate.  Let’s talk instead about the nasty people who are being so horribly “negative”.

      What a load of self serving shallow rubbish.  Anti Obama commentary from tea baggers is mostly vitrolic personal vilification rather that addressing the issue.  If you follow US politics closely there is a lively debate about just about everything, that gasp - is conducted in a reasonable civil manner - by most people from both sides, without the call to shoot the brown skinned Kenyan.

      None of this so clearly illustrates the shallow understanding that you have of the Tea party then the dignified measured response from Obama to the recent shooting of the congresswomen and bystanders.  Palin by comparison delivered a what about me whiney speech that lost her a lot of support.

      If these people are your yardstick, then god help us all.

    • billy says:

      10:33am | 08/03/11

      Sophie… You and you Liberal party is amazing. You supported John Howard in the 2007 election. One of his policies which had support from both sides of politics was a price on carbon. You then supported Turnbell in his quest for a price on Carbon. Then Abbott took over the LNP by only one vote. Now all of a sudden all with the execption of Turnbell are all againt the Carbon Tax. What happened, why did you change you mind.

      Abbott thinks Climate change is crap, if so why have an opposition carbon policy at all. Should you not just said"we dont have a carbon policy because we dont think there is an issue”

      Wake up and smell the roses you are lead by a leader “Abbott” who takes his instructions from the Shock Jock Alan Jones.

    • James1 says:

      10:49am | 08/03/11

      Are you saying it is bad that the Liberal Party has internal debates and disagreements over policy?  Would you prefer it if all conservatives of all stripes spoke to the same script?

    • billy says:

      11:18am | 08/03/11

      What I’m saying is how can you go from fully supporting a carbon Tax to the position the LNP have now. Infact Under Howard government, Abbott indicated that the best solution was a carbon Tax.  So why the sudden change.

    • James1 says:

      11:37am | 08/03/11

      As John Maynard Keynes once said, when the facts change, I change my opinion.  What do you do, sir?

    • billy says:

      12:52pm | 08/03/11

      “when the facts change, I change my opinion”.  So their opinion on “Global Warming” has changed yeh . If thats the case then why even have a carbon reduction Policy at all . Abbott wants to spend $11 billion dollars on a direct action plan. Why even bother if their opion has changed now.

    • Richard says:

      03:37pm | 08/03/11

      The facts did change billy: Copenhagen was a failure. There is no global consensus. Acting independently from Japan, Russia, China, America, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia etc, etc, etc, is foolhardy and pointless (not to mention economically destructive).

    • Mattb says:

      05:55pm | 08/03/11

      Again, not one of you liberal voting hacks can explain why the liberals have a climate change policy. Please can just one of you explain why this is so, why, if you believe there has been this so called ‘change’, has the party you support still got a climate change policy. Come on, let’s here it….

    • persephone says:

      07:31pm | 08/03/11

      Richard

      so the Liberal party was psychic, knew that Copenhagen would be a failure, and changed their policy beforehand on that basis?

      Wow.

      Can they give me the numbers for next week’s Tatts, do you think?

    • Pete says:

      10:49am | 08/03/11

      Invoking Gadaffi’s name to criticise anyone is tasteless. Imagine Mirabella’s own kind’s reaction had she used the word ‘Hitler’ instead. Tony’s wrecking machine has wrecked the Lib’s chances of getting in by reducing themselves to un-statesmenlike anti-everything hicks. It’s a shame because any Lib supporter with half-a-brain would have ushered a more honest, mature opposition into power given the incompetence of LabGreen and their band of Quisling ‘independents’. I’m against a carbon tax for its sheer uselessness, but would prefer cogent arguments were put for/against by our politicians. I don’t think I’m the only one am I?

    • Greg Marrs says:

      11:20am | 08/03/11

      Your mssing the point. The cogent sane rational arguments are being used. But they are not being listened to , hence the comaprison to a dictator who does not listen to the people. It’s quite a simple concept. Unfortunately the communist green labor party doesn’t belive in democracy or small business, so both are gone in a made up fire sale. I’ve yet to meet a warmist who could defeat me in a rational argument over climate change.

    • Cynthia says:

      10:57am | 08/03/11

      Billy - that was before Climategate revealed the Scientists had been lying, constructing fake data, using fudged models, denying FOI requests, ensuring skeptical papers were kept out of peer review and basically organising a smear campaign against opponents. Or is that a touchy subject, the truth , for you? And quoting any of the exoneratiing whitewashes is an unacceptable response. Look at the emails. Can you defend ‘Hide the decline’? Judith Curry couldn’t - so as a rational human being she changed her mind. When the facts change i change my mind, what do you do sir?

    • billy says:

      11:28am | 08/03/11

      Ok if that the case, then why would Abbott and the LNP even bother with any climate change policy. There policy to redice carbon is a direct action plan which according to LNP will cost 11 billion dollars. If they have changed there view on climate change then they should save that money….yeh

    • Helen says:

      11:29am | 08/03/11

      You’re a bit behind Cynth, the newspapers who published bits of the emails out of context were forced to publish an apology and retraction after an enquiry found there was no “fake data” or other shenanigans and that it was, as usual, a tabloid media beatup.

    • Cynthia says:

      01:23pm | 08/03/11

      It’s a wonder you didn’t drown in the Kool-Aid Helen. Get your head out the sand and read ‘the Hockey Stick Illusion’. You should proabbaly go get a dictionary first though and look up whitewash.

    • Richard says:

      03:08pm | 08/03/11

      @billy its probably not a bad idea to clean up our act a little bit and try to emit less carbon regardless of all the lies and fraud surrounding the AGW issue, but the question is, should we do it in a way that artificially raises the price of all energy (thus ensuring that great 1970’s institution: stagflation), or do we do it in a more direct and efficient manner, which won’t drive up the day-to-day living costs of average punters?

    • Brian Taylor says:

      11:19am | 08/03/11

      @ Skatman , if queen bee julia has a mandate then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle and guess what? just checked in the mirror and I’m not all hairy lol.
      If you call having to bend over for the greens and the indies a mandatr then I wonder who really needs to get over it lol.
      she’s going to be a one termer just like the great one Obama. the one she’s trying to inpress with her understanding of world affairs lol what a joke that is.
      she should be here trying to sort out the unholy mess she and her labor cohorts have done to Australia, not out there trying to inpress everyone else. (which won’t work anyway).
      if shes got a mandate as you say, they why isn’t she game enough to take it to the polls?
      because she knows her nbn and health and pink batts and miners tax and now this tax will sink her fast, she’s a loser (like the greens and labor suporters) you have a nice day now Skatman

    • Christian Real says:

      03:29pm | 08/03/11

      She took it to the polls in 2010, she has a mandate, it is only one eyed, tunnelled visionsed ,narrow minded people like you that can’t read.
      This story is taken from ’ The Australian”
      “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise “
      written by: Paul Kelly and dennis Shanahan, August 20,2010 @ 12AM
      ” Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a Carbon price in the next term. “
      ” It will be part of a bold series of reforms that includes school funding, education, and health “
      ” In an election eve interview with ‘The Australian’, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for the step. ”

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      02:13pm | 09/03/11

      @ChristianReal: well let’s face it, Julia herself can’t make up her mind whether she was going to introduce a carbon tax. You reckon she took it to the election? If so, why did she say, quite categorically, thet there would be no carbon tax? Also, she now claims that she has introduced it because the political landscape has changed since the election. So, depending which Julia is being interviewed, you could believe she was, or she wasn’t, or it was part of her election promises, or it’s because she heads a minority govt…......

      As usual, all we can be sure of is that she doesn’t mean a word she says.

    • Amazed says:

      11:30am | 08/03/11

      If Bob is gay why does Julia allow him to go A2M?

    • Rita says:

      02:31pm | 08/03/11

      oh snap! touche!
      line of the day!!

    • Against the Man says:

      03:34pm | 08/03/11

      Because she wants to stay PM and make her parents proud.

    • Gavin says:

      12:45pm | 08/03/11

      No politician ever has a mandate for anything, because elections in a two party democracy are not about real choice. Two party democracies are a compromise between choice and stability. Erring on the side of stability. What it results in is division. Even if an idea is a good idea (I am not saying the Carbon Tax is, I am generalising here) one side MUST oppose it. Bipartisanship is a utopian fallacy in a two party democracy, because its not as much about policies as power. And so long as MY party is in power it’ll all be ok. But if the other party is in power then the country is DOOMED!

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      03:59pm | 09/03/11

      I’m not sure you’re wrong, but I’m not sure you’re right, either. From what I recall of Rudd’s election platform, a lot of it was “Whatever Howard can do, I can do better” He deliberately campaigned on a ‘Me Too’ agenda, the only difference being “I’m not John Howard”.

    • mark from the port says:

      02:18pm | 08/03/11

      Well demon mum, would stating that there will be a “massive tax” before knowing how much tax will be paid and the compensation to help pay for it be considered a “fear campaign” and BTW how’s your alliance with the tobacco companies going Sophie?

    • Jane says:

      02:19pm | 08/03/11

      What a load of rubbish. When the author was a member of the then Howard Government, she was part of a regime that routinely discredited anyone who challenged their policies.

    • Andrew says:

      02:30pm | 08/03/11

      “We will be exporting our production to countries with less stringent environmental regulations”

      You complain about the the Treasurer being vague. Australia outsourced our industries years ago; first to Japan, then Korea and now China and India.

      So instead of talking in general terms, provide us with some real information and facts.

      And wha tdoes the Tea Party have to do with Australia? That’s right, nothing.

      Cheers

    • Nick Stephens says:

      02:35pm | 08/03/11

      I used to hate Howard and the Liberals because of the Iraq war - we know lies were used to invade a foreign nation - but now looking back I can see that whatever Australian Party was in power at the time would have doen the same thing under pressure from the US,UK and Israel. Our country has no indpendence. Look at the Whitlam dismissal. If our international overlords want us to have a carbon tax, there’s precious little we can do about it. We’re too weak and lack the constitution to bear arms against an oppressive government. Maybe taht’s th real reason we don’t have a bill of rights. One question - when are we repalcing the Union jack in the Flag with the hammer & sickle?

    • LC says:

      03:06pm | 08/03/11

      “If our international overlords want us to have a carbon tax, there’s precious little we can do about it.”

      Funny how there is vast international pressure for it depsite the fact it will at most cause a reduction of global carbon emissions of less than ONE PERCENT. Perhaps they should look at China, India or even the States before us.

      And the only country who can safely demand we impliment a carbon tax is NZ.

    • Christian Real says:

      03:14pm | 08/03/11

      I believe it was ‘a Carbon Price”, not a “Carbon Tax” Sophie, as you are your fellow Liberal colleagues are falsely claiming
      This is from the Australian:
      ” Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise “
      Written by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan, August 20, 2010 @ 12.00AM
      ” Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term. “
      ” It will be part of a bold series of reforms that includes school funding, education and health. “
      ” In an election eve interview with The Australian, the Australian Prime Minister reveals she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price,provided the community was ready for this step. ”

    • TimB says:

      06:52pm | 08/03/11

      Semantics Christian.

      She lied. Time for you to admit it.


      Besides which she didn’t “win” she had to negotiate a minority government. That is not a mandate. More specifically the Australian people are overwhelmingly rejecting this tax. She does NOT have a mandate. Therefore she should cease trying to impose this tax.

    • J.R says:

      04:32pm | 08/03/11

      I adore you, Sophie. You are far and away one of my favourite politicians, and its articles like this that make me like you even more. I know that sounds all gushy but I really am that excited to see an article from you on The Punch.

      This is exactly what was thinking after the Tuscon shootings and after Windsor’s strange attempts to block criticism of his policies by implying that his critics were just deranged murderers. Then the majority of the media picked up on it and labelled any rightwing critics as crazy Tea Party members out to assassinate Mr Windsor. There’s something very odd going on when society can’t accept a criticism here or there without labelling the person behind it as a psycopath.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      08:31pm | 08/03/11

      You think its acceptable then to make death threats against our elected representatives?

    • Greg says:

      12:11am | 09/03/11

      It was acceptable when they were made against Pauline Hanson. Wasn’t that all a big joke?

    • Shelly says:

      03:04pm | 09/03/11

      @Steve Putnam - what death threats? “I hope you die” is not the same as “I’m gunna kill you.” After all, everyone dies.

    • 4leaf says:

      05:30pm | 08/03/11

      It is particularly fitting that someone as deluded as Sophie Mirabella would cite criticism of a political party headed by Sarah “I can see Alaska from my house” Palin and a real life witch, as a basis for criticism of her political opponents.  Criticism of the Tea Party being “radical” wasn’t a criticism of the people making the noise against Obama - it was a factual observation based on the utterly idiotic things the Tea Party followers were saying and writing on their placards.  In fact, Sophie Mirabella would fit in with the Tea Party well, shouting utterly nonsensical ramblings about the Prime Minister of a well functioning democracy (in global terms) being in the same league as a murderous despot like Gaddafi.  That isn’t a personal attack on Mirabella - it’s an attack on the complete rubbish she says and writes.  Mirabella has fallen for the same delusion Palin did - complaining about people criticising what you say on the basis that this is some attack on free speech.  Your free to talk utter nonsense Sophie - but those of us with functioning brains are free to highlight how absurd your views are.

    • TimB says:

      06:54pm | 08/03/11

      Given Sarah Palin lives in Alsaka, I would hope that she could in fact see Alaska from her house.

      I’d think twice before calling people idiots if I was you.

    • AdamC says:

      08:20pm | 08/03/11

      She also never said it about Russia, either. So our friend 4Leaf is a bit of a silly Billy on a number of levels..

    • Dingo says:

      09:14am | 09/03/11

      You’re very gullible 4leaf. That quote came from a send up of Sarah Palin.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter