Gillard: From policy dud to economic hero

Mike says:

07:31am | 28/02/11

This will be one of many in the fan club trying to talk up this poor excuse for a PM.

persephone says:

07:32am | 28/02/11

The Libs renege on their promises and fail to support the ETS, making any action in this area impossible until a new Senate is formed.

Gillard recognises this political reality and makes RUdd recognise it too.

As PM, she announces what are clearly - and she says so at the time - a series of second rate, stop gap measures to ensure that action on climate change continues while we’re waiting to see what the new Senate will do.

When it’s clear that the new Senate will support more direct and efficient measures, and that these will happen in a quicker timescale than anticipated, she quite correctly drops the ‘filling in time’ policies (most of which were not supported by environmentalists anyway).

A good PM sticks to their principles; she did this by continual support for action on climate change, and continual commitment to an ETS.

A good PM puts political reality first, is prepared to compromise and to wear the flack when this means that they have to break ‘promises’ in order to achieve the best results for the community. (I can’t name, off hand, a PM who hasn’t broken promises; certainly I can’t name one who didn’t do so in these circumstances).

(‘Deliberate lying’ suggests she knew that she would be facing a hung parliament and would thus not be able to deliver her promise about carbon tax. She didn’t, so it wasn’t a ‘deliberate’ lie).

As for ‘creating policy on the run’ a good PM must be able to react swiftly to changing circumstances, particularly emergency events. Again, I don’t know of a PM who hasn’t done this.

History is littered with PMs who have ticked all the boxes you list, TimB, and who have not only gone on to win more elections but have been recognised as ‘good’.

Angry God says:

07:36am | 28/02/11

Thanks TimB, exactly what I thought.

Harry says:

07:56am | 28/02/11

And lets no forget the she has used the earthquakes, floods, Egypt power change, Libya, etc. as perfect distractions for her announcement and to top it of, the NSW election in March, which she is hoping will be a the pressure release for the population resulting from their annoyance of Labor’s continual betrayals and incompetence. I bet her timing which can only hasten NSW Labor to fall is also done with the aim of reducing the power of Sussex St which she used to knife Rudd in the back, much like the way the Socialist Hitler used the Brown Shirts then dispatched them with the SS.

john says:

08:11am | 28/02/11

@TimB depending on how its implemented, {I’m guesstimating} we could collect more carbon tax over the next 30-50 years, than the entire US debt as it stands today.
Perhaps Gillard knows the next election is lost and will govern unapologetically knowing that Abbott wont undo a windfall of a carbon-tax.
Tony wont confess to the fact he will undo the tax if he wins government, which means he clandestinely supports it by making the right noises against the tax to win votes for the short term.
Its a good political strategy to win an election and also benefiting from a windfall of tax dollars.

Jack says:

08:18am | 28/02/11

“Gillard recognises this political reality and makes RUdd recognise it too” (persphone) and in doing so let Rudd take the fall for HER decision. This is the act of a untrustworthy person. Then she lied to the Australian public to gain power, knowing that she would betray us also as soon as the opportunity arose. Staffers like you can spin all you want. Her actions are clear for all who want to look. .

Adam Diver says:

08:21am | 28/02/11

@ Pers - Double dissolution, double dissolution and um…. double dissolution.

@ TimB - I read your post and then I have to read this

“Gillard is becoming a very good Prime Minister”

And my brain just wants to explode

TimB says:

08:24am | 28/02/11

Keep spinning Perse.

The policies that she dropped- Only dropped because she needed cash for QLD. And Like I said she reinstated a bunch of them because Bob Brown made angry faces at her. Sticking to principles? No.

The ETS/Carbon debacle.  She along with Rudd threatened a DD election if the Senate (in the form of the Coalition) kept blocking her. You might notice they never followed through with that threat. Why? Because they knew an election framed around the question of a Carbon price was one they were destined to lose.

Thats why she lied. Not because she knew she’d be facing a hung parliament, But because she knew if she went to an election with the policy, then Tony & the Coalition would beat her campaign to death with it. And she’d lose.

And yes it WAS a deliberate lie. It doesn’t matter that she faced a hung parliament. A hung parliament doesn’t FORCE you to raise legislation.

And honestly, do you think that if shed won outright & faced a friendly senate that she *wouldn’t* have put any Carbon legislation through?

It was a lie. A lie to get relected. Pure and simple.

She drops policies when they become politically inconvenient, succumbs to pressure to alter other policies when threatened, and is too weak to tell the Greens to pull their heads in.

She’s weak, unprincipled, and told the electorate one of the biggest lies in Australian political history. Enjoy the ride while you can because one way or another,  this is her final term as PM.

Faz says:

08:26am | 28/02/11

@ Harry

I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law!

Usually this doesn’t happen until well into a discussion but when the cap fits ...

Aussie Born and Bred says:

08:40am | 28/02/11

Took the words right out of my mouth, TimB. 

I don’t know what’s scarier; that Ju-LIAR is PM or that people think she’s doing a good job because she’s selling herself to the highest bidder in order to stay in power.

Rosie says:

08:57am | 28/02/11

Thanks TimB couldn’t put it any better!

@ Persetelephone

Yes like Gillard very good at turning things around to justify the position she holds and that she should remain there.

Even after lying to the people she represents and refusing to admit it until forced by Laurie Oakes she has now turned to “pragmatism” to get her through the mess, she herself created on the “carbon tax.”

Persetelephone you say:  “A good PM sticks to their principles” yes agree and how many people would have voted for the Labor Party because they thought the leader had principles and convictions? Gillard has comprised all Labor ideals and values to please the Greens and Indpendents so she can remain in power.

We should all believe in cutting back carbon emissions but not through this minority govt lead by a leader that has lost all creditbilty and is a big time liar. The other reason is the way in which Gillard is rushing through this very important issue with an undivided mind and self conflict only to please the Greens and Independents. Gillard will struggle and therefore will cut corners to first please the Greens and Independents before doing what is good for the nation and staying true to the Labor Party’s convictions. Like the BER, pink batts, health reforms, mining tax etc it will be another botched up job.

Being pragmatic will enable her to justify the wants and needs of the Greens and Independents at the same time allowing Australians to see that she has finally decided on something and is ready to deliver.

Gillard has no choice but throw out Labor’s “convictions” for “pragmatism.“Don’t be fooled Australians, the woman is a con artist!

john says:

09:05am | 28/02/11

@Harry, the NSW election is a forgone conclusion- even you can win a seat it if you put your self on the ballot. The real contest is how many labor supporters the greens can snatch away from the liberals.

Aasq says:

09:38am | 28/02/11

So you voted for Labor, Tim ?

Who would’ve thought it.

Scot says:

10:00am | 28/02/11

Nuclear is a far cheaper and more reliable option than wind or solar, neither or which can supply base load. Nuclear puts out zero emissions unlike coal that dumps 20 tonnes of radioactive waste into the atmosphere every year.
Coal cost per MWH $40
Nuclear $65
Gas $55
Renewables (wind solar biomass) $120 per MWH!!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/spain_fried_by_solar_power

Dissident says:

10:26am | 28/02/11

TimB, agreed.

How on earth Brendan Brown can call say that the Carbon tax is a good economic decision is beyond me.

It is a tax on air;
with massive administrative cost;
with massive churn in the form of ‘family assistance,’;
to fix a problem we aren’t sure exists;
that even if the problem did exist - nobody else is bothering to fix;
that will raise very little income;
that will have negligible effect on global emissions;
will have massive compliance costs for industry;
will drive any marginal business with carbon emissions to the wall; and
neither major party campaigned on.

Brilliant.

Brendan, in the immortal words of Bacon from Lock Stock - “what school of finance did you study?”

fml says:

10:58am | 28/02/11

@scot,

I was unaware coal was radioactive? i was always under the impression nuclear waste was? no nuclear waste from a nuclear reactor?

Lets get you to build one aye? /s

TimB says:

11:01am | 28/02/11

@ John, I’m guessing not many, if any. The Greens are in for a shock. Watch their little deal with Gillard translate into a backlash at state level.

@ AASQ- You’re still not making sense. Suggest you read my response to you in the other thread before you ask the same stupid question again.

Brian says:

11:36am | 28/02/11

A correction! A slug does not morph into a butterfly - a Caterpillar does!

Your lauding of Julia Gillard smacks more of adulation than sound political comment. The Liberal media has consistently ignored the failings of its champions of the left, and concentrated upon finding good points to bolster their flagging stocks, (Have a look at Obama in America), and with the witless programs of the Labour Party in this country.

Where is the demanding interview, the in depth analysis of policy, and the demands for truth? Had Abbott done what Julia has done, we would never hear the end of it. There would be headlines from coast to coast demanding his head.

Polls would be published which would show the anger from the public. Our media is mute on the subject, except for the odd muffled column.

Perhaps Albrechtson in the Australian and Andrew Bolte in the Sun can try to redress the imbalance. But with 100 journalists to 1 rooting for Julia I think it will be a cold day in hell before we see that.

Rosie says:

11:44am | 28/02/11

@TimB

That is Aasq ( Ask a stupid Question attacking the posters with her/his one liners without ever adding to the debate! Her/his name tells it all! She/he is like a bad smell that hangs around!

Brian Richard Allen says:

01:23pm | 28/02/11

In no small part because they are such a moronic-seeming bunch of bland under-intelligent nonentities who tend to talk to us as though they’re reading the Voice of America’s News in Special English to folk to whom they project the soft bigotry of low expectations, we tend to forget the Labour Party exists for the sole purpose of nurturing its ‘collectivist-ish’ power lust—a noxious weed that flourishes only in the vacant lots of its empty minds.

And for the much more important purpose of looting and squandering upon itself and upon its cronies the confiscated wealth of Australia’s most creative, innovative, productive and industrious Men.

Mobbed-up-unionized Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist Jumped-Up Julia - AKA Et Tu Julia? - Gizzard, is the perfect little harmless looking (if you’re in to red-headed yellow bellied Greens-eyed black snakes - eh, Kevin?) Labour looter and is thus much loved by Australia’s epidemically-corrupt Socialist-International-subordinate propagandist pamphleteer “press” as by Australia’s Labour-Party-activist owned, operated and controlled permanent public “service.”

And by the UN looter mates who’re keeping seats warm for them all on Lake Geneva.

TimB says:

02:06pm | 28/02/11

@ John, its just been confirmed the Coalition WILL dump the carbon tax when it’s voted back in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/28/3150553.htm?section=justin

I guess that settles it. Labor is gone.

Steve Smith says:

02:39pm | 28/02/11

Tim B
So Tony Abbott has said that he will dump the carbon tax, but he hasn’t even consulted with his coalition party yet , another policy on the run,and as it’s not a “carefully prepared written statement, it mustn’t be the Gospel Truth.
As Tony Abbott as said “don’t believe everything say”
Tony Abbott’s colleagues nicknamed him ‘weathervane”,because he changes direction on policies all the time.
A power hungry ‘dictator’ like Tony Abbott should not ever be elected to lead a democratic country like Australia.
Tony Abbott changes his policies(like his budgie smugglers) to which every way the political wind of change is blowing at the time.

TimB says:

03:07pm | 28/02/11

Wow, “budgie smugglers” Steve? That’s your argument?

My estimation of your IQ just dropped another few points.

Still haven’t learned what dictator means either I see.

Aasq says:

04:28pm | 28/02/11

It’s very simple, Tim.

You’re claiming that there were these people who were definitely going to vote for the Coalition. Then , because of what the Primie Minister said about a carbon tax apparently they all changed their minds and voted for Labor instead, and that’s why Labor won the election.

So, were you one of them ?

TimB says:

04:54pm | 28/02/11

Yep AASQ just as I thought,  you’ve completely missed the point, not to mention intepreted my comment as something else.

I’ll explain it to you again, It’s quite simple.

There were people who voted for Labor who may well have switched their vote to the Coalition *IF* It had become widespread knowledge that Julia was bringing this tax in before the election. She ruled it out to avoid scaring off those voters. And it wouldn’t have taken many. a few extra votes in marginal seats like Penrith and we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

I don’t know why you keep claiming this means *I* must have voted Labor. Your reasoning is silly.

Steve Smith says:

05:57pm | 28/02/11

Tim B
As you haven’t got one ounce of an IQ yourself to start with, you haven’t got the ability to judge someone else

persephone says:

06:04pm | 28/02/11

TimB

and conversely, there were people who voted for Abbott who didn’t realise that his costings didn’t add up and that he lied to them about that.

What’s worse, unlike Julia’s - which was the result of changing circumstances - that was a deliberate lie, in full knowledge of the facts.

Either that or he’s a total financial illiterate (take your choice).

One way or another, by your own criteria that makes him unfit for government.

Aasq says:

06:17pm | 28/02/11

I’d really like to believe you, Tim, but unfortunately I can’t.

Thanks, and as you know so well these people who were also going to vote for the Coalition if the Prime Minister hadn’t mentioned the carbon tax, please pass on my thanks to them too.

TimB says:

06:24pm | 28/02/11

Perse we went over the costings issue remember? It was a fantasy.

Too bad Julia doesn’t share your confidence in the electorate. She’d take her policy to an election otherwise. She won’t because she knows she’ll lose. And you still haven’t explained how a hung parliament means she *has* to do something now.  I still contend that if she doesn’t want to put a carbon tax in, she doesn’t have to.

Unless you’re admitting she truly is a Greens puppet and has no control over her own policy.

@ Steve,  “an IQ” lol. Just how old are you anyway? You don’t strike me as an adult.

Aasq says:

06:31pm | 28/02/11

Fortunately, persephone, after the election, the Independents were well aware of that, when Treasury told them about the 11 billion reasons why Abbott had refused to submit his costings, and why he had initially refused again when the Independents insisted on it, as Tony Windsor states here ...

TONY WINDSOR: I think there’s some explaining to do and that’s obviously why Tony Abbott’s, you know, climbing up the walls wanting to get us before, before we obvious ah, ah say anything. But I think it does indicate that they knew that there were issues here in terms of the accountability process.

SARAH FERGUSON: Minutes later, the Liberal leader surprises everyone by arriving in the office himself.

TONY WINDSOR (to Tony Abbot): You’ve got something for me?

TONY ABBOTT: I’ve got something for you, yeah, yeah. Um, shall I go in. (To 4 Corners camera person) Do you mind if I close the door. Thanks.

(Later on, Tony Abbott leaves Tony Windsor’s office)

SARAH FERGUSON: Could I just ask you something, Mr Abbott, since you’ve caught us. This is obviously a difficult night for you. Do you accept the Treasury’s assumptions that, that an-and, do you accept the conclusions that Treasury have come to about the hole in the budget?

TONY ABBOTT: On Treasury’s worst assumptions we still get a significant improvement to the bottom line and I would strongly defend ah, our costings, vis a vis the Treasury. I’m sure ah, they are not prepared to accept ah, some of our reasoning, but I think our think our reasoning is eminently defensible.

SARAH FERGUSON: The question is though, did you have something to hide and is that why you didn’t show these costings to the independents in the first place?

TONY ABBOTT: To be honest a bit of an offensive question Sarah. It’s…

SARAH FERGUSON: I’m only going on what they said.

TONY ABBOTT: It is a very offensive question.

SARAH FERGUSON: I’m just picking up on what Mr Katter said.

matilda says:

12:42am | 01/03/11

Strange article. A thought a good leader was judged on the outcomes they achieved. Gillard has been part of the govt leadership team since 2007 and what are the outcomes? She has been the leader for 7months - and what are the outcomes? No movement on the so-called detention centre in East Timor. A mining tax that fails on many levels. Asylum seekers - arriving in more numbers by boat than by plane. What has she achieved? Education revolution? Insulation fires?

Scot says:

12:53am | 01/03/11

According to Michael Kruse, consultant on nuclear systems for Arthur D. Little, the Chinese are ready to spend $511 billion to build up to 245 reactors…
Just 13 nuclear plants operate in China today, and until recently the Chinese were building only one or two reactors a decade. Now they are building 25 facilities, accounting for close to half the reactors under construction worldwide…
China’s energy planners say they aim to have 40 reactors by 2020 and, by 2030, enough additional reactors to generate more power than all 104 reactors in the U.S., the leader in nuclear energy…
President Hu Jintao wants non-fossil fuels to produce 15 percent of China’s energy by 2020. Although the Chinese have spent plenty on wind turbines and solar panels, only a buildup of nuclear power can make that target reachable.
“Developing clean, low-carbon energy is an international priority,” says Zhao Chengkun, vice-president of the China Nuclear Energy Association. “Nuclear is recognized as the only energy source that can be used on a mass scale to achieve this.”

persephone says:

08:53am | 01/03/11

TimB

we went over the costings issue, Tim, and even you admitted that (in the best case scenario for the Libs) they were a couple of billion out.

But what’s a billion here or there, hey?

And let’s not go into their ‘$50 billion savings’ which is even more dodgy but still gets trotted out on a regular basis.

As Windsor says, Abbott would have done anything to get into office.

David C says:

09:02am | 28/02/11

the problem with Swan , Brown Milne et al is they just do not understand how the real world works, ask anyone from the business world who has had anything to do with them

Coolio says:

12:26pm | 28/02/11

So we can all agree then that Howard didn’t introduce any economic reforms at all in his 11 years. Lucky Keating was busy during his term!

Brad of Bentleigh says:

04:19pm | 28/02/11

Coolio, The GST (a Howard reform) was indeed a new tax, but there was a whole stack of taxes that were removed. Not all of them were removed, but not because of Howard, because of ALP held states. Take stamp duty as a good example, when the states signed up to GST, they agreed to drop stamp duty, surprisingly, the [ALP held] states renegged and we were all stuck with that dog of a tax.

Catching up says:

10:15pm | 28/02/11

GST was a new tax, I thought it was sold as economic reform.  Oh, I understand ut us only reform when the Coalition does it.

TChong says:

07:59am | 28/02/11

AtM, have you and Joan, ever been seen in the same room ,together?
Thought not. You must be same person, or both read from a very similar script. 

Fred says:

08:23am | 28/02/11

Yes, a typical Labor/Green approach. Tax fuel, blame the people for using their cars AND OFFER NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE. The morons have not noticed, the public transport system is inadequate (at best) and this country is big.

Fred says:

08:23am | 28/02/11

Yes, a typical Labor/Green approach. Tax fuel, blame the people for using their cars AND OFFER NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE. The morons have not noticed, the public transport system is inadequate (at best) and this country is big.

Against the Man says:

09:41pm | 28/02/11

TChong the fact that you didn’t deny anything I said about Gilltard has made my day.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:54am | 28/02/11

It is a tax and she lied about it. Full stop. End of story.
 
You can try to spin it all you like, it will not change the fact that she is a lying bitch.

Aasq says:

09:41am | 28/02/11

Excellent rebuttal, Tony. Take that, Lisa !

Skatman says:

10:08am | 28/02/11

Lisa @ 06:00 - You’re kidding right? NO-ONE can take that mantle from John Howard - after nearly twelve years in power…what did he achieve? Apart from crumbling infrastructure, education going backwards, rising xenophobia due to fear, fear and more fear. It takes guts for a PM to make unpopular decisions, something the LNP could never do. Our PM is on a winner here and this WILL be the downfall of Tony Abbott, he has placed himself in a very awkward position indeed, he has splits within his own party on this issue. But what the heck, go and pump petrol, that will help, NOT.

john says:

10:34am | 28/02/11

@Lisa @ Tony of Poorakistan @ Aasq

Friendly fire?....aren’t you guys on the same side LOL

Bloggs says:

11:41am | 28/02/11

@ Skatman, wrong, sunshine.  Wrong!  John Howard managed 11 years and did a fine enough job.  History is already remembering him kindly except perhaps for a few ALP stalwarts like yourself.

But Rudd and Gillard will not be remembered kindly.  Her forced admission of lying will cost her votes and history. 

It does not take guts to make unpopular decisions as this Carbon Tax is, it just takes hte fear of losing the Green support that props up her precarious position.  Did you see the smugness on the face of that fool Brown as he literally stood over Gillard and forced the point ?? It was clear.

Abbott may not be the best option we have right now, but it is a far better option than Gillar and Brown and those equally fool independents.

Nick says:

07:33am | 28/02/11

The good of the nation? Please explain in detail acotrel about the benefits to ALL Australians and the benefits to the environment…

This article is complete bollocks says:

07:45am | 28/02/11

Julia is the sort of woman who only does things for political reasons… and, yes, she is an intellectual dud (though that is probably too kind to her intelligence). Let’s take a look - dump the ETS then do a review of the election result and conclude that they lost by ceding ground to the Greens, so reinstate the ETS in the form of a Carbon Tax. Totally political and what’s worse is that it is completely unwarranted and pointless, it will only achieve the goal of leaving Australia in a perpetual state of recession (which, coincidentally, is good for Labor because their generous dole payment make voting for them in bad economic times a must). And then there’s the flood levy, which was introduced for one reason only - to wedge Tony Abbott on the issue. If she wanted to she could’ve easily found the money to fund it, but there was no political gain in that - hence the tax. Everything Dillard has ever done is to further her political ambition, it’s just a shame she’s so low on the intellectual evolutionary scale.

persephone says:

08:06am | 28/02/11

Nick

benefits to all Australians:

1. action on climate change now saves money, as all economic studies show that the longer it is before action is taken, the more expensive it is.

2. action on climate change now saves money, due to the reduced impact of extreme climate events long term.

3. action on climate change now lessens future trauma, as fewer extreme weather events means fewer Australians undergoing the deaths, injuries, loss and stress these cause.

4. action on climate change now creates certainty of investment for industry, giving them the confidence to make new investments and thus creating jobs.

5. action on climate change now gives farmers etc more certainty for the future and a better chance of adapting to continuing climate changes.

The environment

1. Pricing carbon drives investment in more environmentally friendly sources of power.

2. Pricing carbon encourages environmentally friendly activities such as tree planting (leading up to the 2007 vote on the CPRS, major energy suppliers were ready to plant something like 40 million trees as soon as the legislation was in place).

3. Pricing carbon encourages everyone - power companies, businesses large and small, individuals - to look at their operations and rejig them to be more environmentally friendly.

4. And, of course, less emissions - driven by all of the above - gives the environment more time to adapt to a changing climate and eventually stabilises the climate. This will save species from extinction.

Complete bollocks (lovely name, suits you)

Gillard never stopped supporting an ETS. She repeatedly said that she was committed to bringing one in. However, she recognised there was no point bringing the legislation back into Parliament when the Senate was determined to reject it.

If you believe otherwise, find one statement on the record where she says she’s not going to bring in an ETS.

Adam Diver says:

08:32am | 28/02/11

@ Pers - I look forward to MarK’s rebuttal but I just can’t leave it up to him every time.

1. ” as all economic studies show”

2 & 3. Completely unproven.

4. There are two ways to promote certainty. Ruling out a tax is one option - (gasp says all the laborites)

5. ??? ??? ??? WTH?

Environment

1. Yes it does, particularly nuclear which is already ruled out :( Its important that solar, wind and geothermal get some investment because its not like these have been subsidised or anything already

2 & 3. Raising prices does indeed change behavior where possible.

4. Evidence please and be specific, how many species will Australia acting on its own save. I will be fair you can round the numbers off

CABAL says:

08:47am | 28/02/11

Oh yes it will benifit ALL Australians, except you know anyone that might happen to work with the current energy companies who will most likely be forced to cut thousands of jobs due to an inability to pay them. or the families who are already on the knife edge and will be forced out of their homes due to the rise in home energy prices. oh and now the greens want to tax petrol for our cars as well. which means even more people who can no longer pay all their bills and will be forced into economic hardship… Yeah wow thanks ALP, wish I could just tax tax tax to cover my poor financial decisions… oh wait I didn’t make any.

Dash says:

08:47am | 28/02/11

acotrel: Yep, lies to get her way, every chance she gets. I agree with you. She has no shame, whatever she needs to do to get her way. Just ask Rudd!

Perse: She lied to the Australian people! She has no morals, no ethics at all. She claimed goevrnment on the back of a deceitful lie! And yet you still pay your membership to the ALP and blindly support such a cowardly government who have prostitued themselves before the greens. You should be ashamed of yourself!

David C says:

09:06am | 28/02/11

P-phone
future costs of climate change are moot, if we dont stuff things up as we are potentially about to do then we will be wealthier and thus in a better position to adapt to realistic impacts
I mean seriously what major disasters are we going to experience from a 2degree change in temps .. globaly.. how much does the temp change from winter to summer anyway?

Ripa says:

09:31am | 28/02/11

@pers
What a load of airy-fairy rubbish,
1. What economic studies?

2. What extreme climate events?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

3.And again what increase in extreme weather events?

4. Industry has said they are just going to pass on the increase in costs, therefore creating nothing but more revenue for the government.
increased inflation, increased interest rates. But we all know this is labors usual shtick , they couldn’t manage a chook raffle.

5. hypocrisy, spin, lies, all while we sell coal to china and Asia, there is no plan here but to force in a TAX.

Gillard is a liar (fact) and doesn’t believe in democracy or the rule of law, she is a socialist (fact) and there is no country on the planet with a socialist government in charge that values equality and choice for its people.(fact)

jf says:

10:26am | 28/02/11

1.Which studies are those Perspe? Here’s another body of academic evidence for you http://www.petitionproject.org/
2. See 1. above.
3. Does this mean that you have a strategy for completely eradicating millions of years of global climate change? Don’t the dinosaurs wish you were around before the ice age. 
4. Only as long as that action includes not imposing new taxes and costs on businesses that change on the whim of Bob Brown and based on bogus science.
5. See 4. above.
The environment
1. So what? Not pricing carbon reduces the cost of energy.
2. So you reckon that the poor should have to pay more for energy so that you can have a prettier suburb? Because, a carbon tax will not stop climate change.
3. And you don’t think that they’ll pass it on? Again, so you reckon that the poor should have to pay more for energy so that you can have a prettier suburb?
4. Again, if only you were around to save the poor dinosaurs, killed by the climate change that you reckon a carbon tax will stop.
“Gillard never stopped supporting an ETS.”
Maybe not but she did say “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead”.
So she may still support an ETS but she stated unequivocally that she would never introduce one. That said, I respect her right to change her mind on this – as long as she takes it to an election.

persephone says:

12:02pm | 28/02/11

To recap:

benefits

1. So no one has a counter economic study to put forward? (jf, sorry, the petition project has been completely discreditted - and I don’t think the guy even claims to be an economist, which is what we’re talking about).

2.  Again, no counter arguments presented. As scientists in the field predicted, the economic impacts of extreme weather events are already hitting our economy.

3. Demonstrated by the economic modelling. The anthropomorphic nature of present climate change - as opposed to past events, which are clearly explicable by natural occurences - is well proven.

4. Er, supported by statements from many industries, particularly the energy sector, calling for certainty.

The legislation will provide that, and provide also the timetable for orderly reviews of its effectiveness - driven by the science.

5. Planning for the future - especially in areas such as farming - can only happen when you have a reasonable idea of the climate. If the climate continues to change, you cannot plan for it.

When you’re looking at putting in permanent crops, or even in investing in infrastructure to grow the same annual crop into the future, knowing that the plants are actually going to grow to harvest is essential.

Can’t make those predictions confidently in a continually changing climate.

Environment

1. Yes, there is currently investment in alternative technologies. If there is a carbon price, there is even more incentive for companies to invest in these areas. Again, this message comes from the companies themselves.
Not pricing carbon is driving up the costs of energy production because companies are unwilling to invest until there’s a price on carbon.

(and none of them seem at all interested in nuclear.  Pointless conversation if no company is prepared to put up the money to back it - and no one is).

2.  jf, I don’t live in a suburb.

Compensation measures will be built into the package - as they were in the last one - to ensure that those on lower incomes don’t suffer.

They’ll still want to change their energy use patterns, because we all like saving money.

Honestly, the way conservative bloggers here trash the idea of market forces gives me a very low opinion of their economic nous!

4. Past climate change events have led to extinctions. Past climate events have been driven by natural occurences, which are not factors in our present climate change scenario.

Even slight rises in temperature have driven extinction events in the past. Rapid climate change, the likes of which we are experiencing now, gives species less time to adapt and therefore increases the likelihood of extinction events.

(And don’t be silly, Adam, unless you’re prepared to quantify with scientific evidence the number of species which will NOT go extinct if we don’t take action).

Nick

1. It will surprise you to know that some countries are incredibly short sighted and act only in their short term interests.

2. India, China and the US are all taking action on climate change. 32 countries and 10 US states already have carbon pricing mechanisms in place. Many, many ofhers are in the planning stages.

4. Evidence, please. 

5. And you base this on what science??

Environment

1. Never heard of market forces, have you?

2. Yet it isn’t happening and certainly not on the scales I was talking about. (the Coalition’s policy is something like 10% of the number of trees over a much longer timeline).

3. We’re into moral arguments here. Did you leave your hose on all during the drought because it really didn’t make any difference to the amount of water in the storages? Or did you recognise that everyone doing their bit to abide by the restrictions meant that more water was preserved for later?

4. Again, shows an awful distrust of market forces and their ability to change behaviour.

And of science.

So you guys don’t trust economists. You don’t believe in market forces. You don’t trust scientists.

We’re in worldwide conspiracy territory, then.

luke says:

12:10pm | 28/02/11

There is nothing good for the nation with the carbon tax fraud. It will not halt climate change, nothing can stop climate change. The carbon tax is all about money, money for the pro global warming cheersquad. The fact that we Australians will pay a price for using coal powered electricity and export coal to other countries who don’t pay carbon tax defeats the whole purpose of a carbon tax. Let’s not forget one volcano eruption outputs more carbon than we emit for a whole year. It is about time the lefty green tree huggers realised the carbon tax is about money not the environment.

Brian says:

12:22pm | 28/02/11

Your point is made by looking at what she has done.

A tax on carbon (dioxide) is a stupid idea that will kill many small businesses stone dead. It will make any exporting company uncompetitive for the simple reason that NO other country, and especially China and India, is going to stop burning coal any time soon. They do not have a tax on carbon!

The stupid idea (unproven) that we are warming the planet to hell with fossil fuels, and that Australia must have an ETS right now, is not only idiotic, but flies in the face of facts. The Iceland volcano has emitted more carbon dioxide than we have produced in about 5 years! All the sacrificing, sufferings and unwarranted expense to lower carbon dioxide emissions has been wasted by one volcanic eruption. If global warming exists, then we cannot do anything meaningful about it. Human CO2 is about 5% of all CO2. Australia’s portion of Human CO2 is 1% That is 1% of 5% of Carbon Dioxide. Almost nothing!

Julia is not interested in Australia! Not when she wants to foist such a tax on her people. She has done a deal with that twit Bob Brown and his supporters to hold on to power. I just wonder what it is!!

persephone says:

01:04pm | 28/02/11

Brian

interested in your comment on the Icelandic volcano. Can find absolutely no evidence to support your figures.

http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2010/04/20/what-effect-will-the-iceland-volcano-have-on-climate/

‘The EPA estimates that in 2006, human activity accounted for 28 trillion metric tons of CO2 emissions..’

‘Despite the dramatic impact the Iceland volcano, it’s emission are fairly small, only spewing an estimated one million metric tons of CO2. All told, volcanic activity probably equals only about 0.7% of anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions’

So the Icelandic volcano doesn’t even get to 1% of human emissions.

persephone says:

01:04pm | 28/02/11

Brian

interested in your comment on the Icelandic volcano. Can find absolutely no evidence to support your figures.

http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2010/04/20/what-effect-will-the-iceland-volcano-have-on-climate/

‘The EPA estimates that in 2006, human activity accounted for 28 trillion metric tons of CO2 emissions..’

‘Despite the dramatic impact the Iceland volcano, it’s emission are fairly small, only spewing an estimated one million metric tons of CO2. All told, volcanic activity probably equals only about 0.7% of anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions’

So the Icelandic volcano doesn’t even get to 1% of human emissions.

Ben81 says:

01:11pm | 28/02/11

1) An Australian carbon tax or ETS will have no measurable impact at all on climate change.  Zero.  Nada.  Let’s not introduce one and increase our cost of living to achieve nothing.

That’s about it, can we scrap it and move on now?

Matt says:

02:26pm | 28/02/11

@persephone,

Most of the information refuting your points can be found in the attached article.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/unilateral-action-creates-costs-without-benefits/story-fn59niix-1226013133637

MarK says:

06:11pm | 28/02/11

“1. So no one has a counter economic study to put forward? (jf, sorry, the petition project has been completely discreditted - and I don’t think the guy even claims to be an economist, which is what we’re talking about).”

All the economic say it hey pers? Lol….you haven’t provided one…NOT ONE.

Here is a rebuttal of one of the most ridiculous but most quoted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm

And now all that needs to be said.

This is as funny as your Day After Tomorrow is based on science claim

“3. Demonstrated by the economic modelling. The anthropomorphic nature of present climate change - as opposed to past events, which are clearly explicable by natural occurences - is well proven.”

See…Yasi and the Qld were caused by AGW.

What a foolish thing to say.

But it gets better

“5. Planning for the future - especially in areas such as farming - can only happen when you have a reasonable idea of the climate. If the climate continues to change, you cannot plan for it.

When you’re looking at putting in permanent crops, or even in investing in infrastructure to grow the same annual crop into the future, knowing that the plants are actually going to grow to harvest is essential.

Can’t make those predictions confidently in a continually changing climate.”

This is gold.

Pers now believes an Australian tax on carbon stabilises climate.

Awesome.

Pers believes taxes control the weather.

really pers you make Flannery look like a calm voice for action on AGW.

persephone says:

06:50pm | 28/02/11

Matt

Matt

You obviously were incapable of understanding the article you linked to, or you would have explained its arguments yourself.

Ergas makes the following claims:

1. The major impacts of the carbon tax will be on the mining industries and thus drive mining overseas.

Incorrect. There will be compensation (of some kind) for trade exposed industries, where it can be clearly shown that a carbon tax puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

There was in the first package and the indications are that this will be retained.

2. Jobs will be lost because of the impact on mining, and jobs created by the new ‘green’ market won’t compensate for these.

Again, Ergas is assuming that export industries won’t be compensated for the carbon tax. If they are, they experience no losses and thus have no need to shed staff.

Meanwhile, market forces will act as a drive for investment in ‘green’ energy sources, creating an estimated 30,000 jobs over the next decade.

3. Australia adopting a carbon tax will not put pressure on other countries to do the same.

On the other hand, if we don’t put a price on carbon we can’t put pressure on other countries to do the same.

Given that we are (per capita) the highest polluters in the world, it is fairly obvious that we have to be amongst the first to act, if we are to have any credibility arguing the case.

4. Incomes will fall.

By this he means that costs will rise, a completely different thing to incomes falling.

He fails to factor in the corresponding compensation, which will in fact mean that most incomes will rise, even taking the effects of carbon tax related price rises into account.

MarK

1. No, haven’t had to, noone’s provided a counter.

I’ll give you Stern and Garnaut to begin with.

Note that the article you link to demonstrates that, although there are some critics of Stern’s assumptions (and of course there would be, because any position can be criticised) all agree that climate change is real, needs to be acted on, and will be cheaper to tackle now rather than later.

I wish you would actually read the articles you link to, or at least try and understand them.

2. I assume you agree with.

3. Er, I didn’t say that. How about countering the arguments I do make, rather than just making things up?

4. I assume you agree with.

5. Again, no criticism of my actual argument, so I assume you agree with it.

The whole aim of action on climate change is to stabilise the climate.

Not my fault you’re ignorant.

Again, a raft of economists and environmental experts agree with me.

Who do you believe? The tooth fairy?

I take it you accept my other arguments 1-4 as well.

2.

jf says:

07:02pm | 28/02/11

The scariest thing Perse, is that you believe the spin.

You believe that it is ok for the leader of a major political party to tell a blatant lie on a policy that has a far reaching and consequential impact on all voters.

You believe that because you believe in AGW then so must we.

You believe that because you believe in AGW then everyone else must pay. Because you can afford a hike in energy costs you don’t seem to care that the poor will suffer.

Sure business wants certainty. Most feel that they had that when Gillard said that there willl be “no Carbon Tax under a government I lead”. Perhaps you could explain why there was any uncertainy unless, of course, you concede that Gilard is a pathological liar and we should all have known it, just like you did. You might also explain how the certainty of a new tax is better for business than the certainty of no new tax.

Also, I would like you to direct me to all these reports regarding the economic benefits of a new tax.

Hopefully they will be more accurate than the following snippets from climate change scientists.

“. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is. Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” “Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) - March 2000

“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

Just how long do the climate change scientist have to be wrong. Not just uncertain, but wrong, before everyone realises it?

Mouse says:

08:29pm | 28/02/11

jf, the new tax has the economic benefit of , hopefully, getting gillard a surplus in the 2012/13 budget!  Well, she stated, catergorically, that she WILL have a surplus!! She promised! So now we will have a flood levy, a carbon tax, a petrol tax,( next it will be a surplus levy). So, by Golly, we better have a surplus!

Matt says:

10:11pm | 28/02/11

persephone obviously thinks she is superior in knowledge to Henry Ergas. Interesting…

As for your insults about my level of comprehension, why would I reiterate what Ergas has already written? Especially when you ignore everything that doesn’t fit your Labor sensibilities. I certainly also won’t bother stating my credentials for your gratification (that you would simply ignore anyway - much like Ergas’ article). It seems a bit redundant, considering you’re just a school teacher.

Also, you’re making up whatever narrative you need to to “successfully” argue that this is good policy (note the quotation marks). Please, oh knowledgeable persephone, link us to factual data showing what compensation will be offered to mining companies and businesses that somehow makes his arguments irrelevant.

By the way, please show me how Australia has any credible methods of putting “pressure” on other, much larger countries. I’m dying to know when this miraculous influence over countries like China and the United States magically appeared.

You’re nothing but a hack, persephone.

MarK says:

11:24pm | 28/02/11

“1. No, haven’t had to, noone’s provided a counter.

I’ll give you Stern and Garnaut to begin with.

Note that the article you link to demonstrates that, although there are some critics of Stern’s assumptions (and of course there would be, because any position can be criticised) all agree that climate change is real, needs to be acted on, and will be cheaper to tackle now rather than later.

I wish you would actually read the articles you link to, or at least try and understand them.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

You fail at comprehension.

Really…..LAWL

What part of this do you not understand

“The report may have been loved by the politicians and headline writers but when climate scientists and environmental economists read the 670-page review, many said there were serious flaws. “

and

“If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail
Prof Richard Tol”

Glowing endorsements of Stern in your eyes?

So I provided the counter to your acolyte and yet you say no no…..no one has said nothing. Really?

Wow….just wow.

Ask Michael Costa about Garnaut. His report has been criticised widely as well. You are lying again pers.

Lying.

“2. I assume you agree with.”

Nope not even close. Read what I wrote about economic arguments before. AGW is not real in any case but to humor you you still need to prove that billions spent now are well spent and that reversing AGW is economic in any case.

F for fail here again on the comprehension.

“3. Er, I didn’t say that. How about countering the arguments I do make, rather than just making things up?”

Yes you did. Errr doesn’t cut it. Don’t shy away from your words

“3. Demonstrated by the economic modelling. The anthropomorphic nature of present climate change - as opposed to past events, which are clearly explicable by natural occurences - is well proven.”

Re-quoted to remind you of the ridiculous statement you made. You are claiming current extreme weather events are AGW caused unlike past ones.

This is a clear reference to Qld where the 1890’s is one example that shows the weather events we have witnessed recently are not abnormal nor have anything to do with so called AGW.

If you make a statement stick to it. Don’ be like Gillard and run.

“4. I assume you agree with.”

My silence means nothing. You do not assume. It is low brow and ridiculous. Do you treat your students like this?

“5. Again, no criticism of my actual argument, so I assume you agree with it.”

Damning criticism. I called you a fraud but had not the wit to realise it.

What you have said is this tax wil stabilise the climate hence farmers can plan with certainty.

That is what you said. Do not spin your own words. Do not lie. Do not wiggle. It is laughable you think man could conceivably stabilise the climate in any way or form.

Laughable.

You are a zealot sprouting nonsense.

Again do not think my silence is acquiescence to any of your “theories”. I refute all of them as I read them. Others gave reasons, some of the points were so fanciful silence is the nicest thing one could afford them - outright mirth and much laughter was had in reading them though.

You have not one scientist on your side that claims we can control the climate. You have not one scientist on your side that links Yasi and floods directly to AGW. You have some economists that have been disputed.

And again you fail to address anything I said.

You fail to show how this tax will affect anything.

You are a fraud peddling untruths and fantasies. You are weak on the finer points…hell you are weak on any poiint. You make grandiose claims…all economists…HAHAHAHAHA…..and fail to back it up.

You are attempting to back a liar with lies of your own.

Pathetic weak and cowardly.

Say hi to New Hampshire for me. Heard what happened there today?

Some light reading for you also

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

I sure can’t wait for all those jobs and $250k subsidies to support them.

Awesome stuff.

To be a zealot and ideologically blind is one thing. To be so blinded by a false god that you stumble down a worn road with known pitfalls and traps on a course to waste and no benefit is unforgivable. Especially when the action is based on a lie made to secure power.

Disgusting.

persephone says:

09:14am | 01/03/11

jf

yes, I believe on the basis of the science that AGW is real.

That’s because I’m a rational human being who likes to base action on evidence and believes that identifiable risks should be mitigated.

We act to mitigate risks which have far far less evidential backing than AGW does.

Oh, btw - by any definition of the term, I am ‘the poor’.

In the very same interview where Gillard said there would be no tax on carbon, she said there would be a carbon price. So if business went on their merry way thinking otherwise, then they were remarkably short sighted.

Of course, they weren’t. They have plans all ready to go the second a carbon price is legislated (just as they had for the CPRS). They would like to know which of these are worth implementing and which should go in the round folder.

Anyone who thought that the ALP was not going to act on climate change in this term of government were simply not paying attention.

And yes, personally, I don’t give a rats whether it’s a broken promise or not. I want action on climate change, as do the majority of Australians, and the end is more important than the means.

Mouse

under the Howard government, tax as a proportion of GDP was far higher than it is at present, and so high that - even after the carbon price and mining tax are introduced (by which time the flood levy will have been lifted) - we’ll stil pay less tax under a Gillard government.

And yet he still managed to produce surpluses.

This is really not surprising, when you think about it, Mouse. After all, the simplest way to accumulate a surplus is to take lots of tax off people and then not spend it.

Matt

how is critiquing Ergas ‘ignoring’ him? On the contrary, it shows that I read the article, all by myself and without my mummy helping me, and that I understood it. It’s not my fault the man has ignored some well known facts in his article, and the fact that someone with my limited economic understanding can point them out simply demonstrates the flimsy structure he’s built his case on.

You’re welcome to critique my critique in turn. Why don’t you?

Oh, that’s right, because I’m a hack.

Unlike yourself, of course, who just unblinkingly accepting everything Ergas said because it was criticising the government.

So: a hack is someone who argues a case using evidence and an independent free thinking individual is someone who just accepts what they’re told without question.

George Orwell would be very proud of you, Matt.

MarK

when you get to HAHAHAHA, as I have frequently observed, I count it as a win.

when you start accusing me of lying, rather than using evidence to disprove what I say, I count it as a win.

when you say I said something which I clearly didn’t - being very careful not to - then I count it as a win.

Keep chortling, little man. It doesn’t make ME look foolish.

Matt says:

12:05pm | 02/03/11

persephone, I’m gobsmacked that you think any “well-known facts” exist that you use to “critique” Ergas when no legislation or any real policy details actually exist! You keep saying how everyone is going to be compensated. Please, show me who will be compensated (not just low income earners), and exactly how much they will be compensated by. Looks to me that a big chunk of the tax proceeds will be sent overseas in any event.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/

How can this be if compensation will be paid out to Australians that is greater than the tax brought in, whilst still sending billions of dollars overseas?

Anyway, I’ll play your little game for you.

“Ergas makes the following claims:

1. The major impacts of the carbon tax will be on the mining industries and thus drive mining overseas.

Incorrect. There will be compensation (of some kind) for trade exposed industries, where it can be clearly shown that a carbon tax puts them at a competitive disadvantage.”
—> Prove to me that mining corporations will be compensated. Show me the numbers, and the legislation where this is enshrined in law. Whats that, you can’t? Didn’t think so. Besides, if miners and other big polluters are being compensated for the carbon tax they pay, whats the point of it again? If they aren’t getting compensated, then that puts our exports at a serious competitive disadvantage globally. Doesn’t sound like Ergas’ argument is flimsy at all. It sounds more like that you are making up whatever facts you need to to discredit his analysis (making you look pretty bloody stupid in the process, I must say).

“2. Jobs will be lost because of the impact on mining, and jobs created by the new ‘green’ market won’t compensate for these.

Again, Ergas is assuming that export industries won’t be compensated for the carbon tax. If they are, they experience no losses and thus have no need to shed staff.

Meanwhile, market forces will act as a drive for investment in ‘green’ energy sources, creating an estimated 30,000 jobs over the next decade.”
—> With jobs from other sectors being lost as a result of mining operations pulling out of Australia (with the “green” jobs being less economically efficient, to the detriment of Australia). Once again, you miss the point of the article. Or you ignore it, one or the other. And again, you assume the big polluters will be compensated (coal exports are kind of a big deal to Australia, you know).

“3. Australia adopting a carbon tax will not put pressure on other countries to do the same.

On the other hand, if we don’t put a price on carbon we can’t put pressure on other countries to do the same.

Given that we are (per capita) the highest polluters in the world, it is fairly obvious that we have to be amongst the first to act, if we are to have any credibility arguing the case.”
—> We have 0.03% of the world’s population. We are insignificant on the world stage, and our policies will have no impact on other countries, or how they tackle climate change. Otherwise, Rudd would have led everyone at Copenhagen by the hand singing Kumbaya and bringing about a Global accord instead of it being an abject failure. It is not “fairly obvious” that we have to act. You keep saying that because you need it to bolster your argument, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

“4. Incomes will fall.

By this he means that costs will rise, a completely different thing to incomes falling.

He fails to factor in the corresponding compensation, which will in fact mean that most incomes will rise, even taking the effects of carbon tax related price rises into account.”
—> If costs rise, net income falls. Pretty simple stuff there. We are talking about business certainty here, just so you’re keeping up. And again, show me empirical evidence of who will be compensated, and how much they will be compensated by, before spouting off this nonsense that *most* incomes will rise as a result. Oh, you may as well let us know how much costs will rise while you’re at it, considering you’re so adamant that compensation will outstrip increases in living costs.

Finally, in response to your stab at me:

“So: a hack is someone who argues a case using evidence and an independent free thinking individual is someone who just accepts what they’re told without question.”

If you actually think and believe what you write, then you need to do a bit more study. I’d also suggest you stop teaching, because I truly worry for your students if this sort of “critical analysis” is what you’re passing on to them.

And yes, you are a hack.

Nick says:

09:27am | 28/02/11

Persephone..what an absolute load of garbage..
1.If action on climate change saved money then every country in the world would already be on board.
2.You are a fool if you believe there will be a change in weather by the introduction of a carbon tax especially whilst the worlds population is increasing and countries like India China and the USA are not doing anything.
3.“as above”
4.Business is asking for certainty so they can decide whether to stay or go off shore.They all prefer no carbon tax.
5.Carbon tax won’t do anything to the weather.
Environment.
1.Pricing carbon will not drive investment as the tax will be passed on to consumers.
2.Tree planting can be done without a carbon tax.
3.Even if we turn off all the electricity in Australia it will make little difference to the worlds carbon emissions so we are taxing Australians for no gain.
4.as above..even if we introduce a carbon tax can you really believe the weather will change.
All very weak and repeated dribble that glosses over the harsh reality that this is a socialist agenda to redistribute wealth and you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting a tax that will do nothing to the climate ,do nothing to world carbon emissions and hurt ordinary Australians .

Steve Putnam says:

10:51am | 28/02/11

A very wise person once said: ‘The tragedy of ignorance is in its complacency’. All you climate change ‘flat earthers’ have this in abundance.

acotrel says:

07:26am | 28/02/11

’ Most of the media already believe Gillard is a good PM. The problem is that the public are not buying their left wing spin. ‘

Rupert Murdoch has changed tack again?

persephone says:

07:53am | 28/02/11

32 countries and 10 US states already have a carbon price, mostly using some form of ETS, so we’re not going to be ‘the only two’.

In fact, we’re lagging behind most of the world on this.

Denny Crane says:

08:13am | 28/02/11

9 US states, new hampshire just revoked their legislation because of fraud and the pointlessness of the tax. There is only 1 other country with a carbon tax - New Zealand. Others have weak trading schemes that have been exploited by fraudsters and ruthless bankers.

Funny how they dont sprout the great economic benefits that a carbon tax has done to California. Why is that?

Mal says:

08:22am | 28/02/11

Persephone.  India charges $1 p/tonne, California charges 4 cents per tonne.  When India, China and the USA reduce their emissions then a difference will be made.  What we have is a tax that won’t change a thing other than putting more money in the hands of the fiscally incompetent.  Plus she lied.

Adam Diver says:

08:34am | 28/02/11

@ Pers - stop with the hyperbole. I see they taught you well at the Labor spin academy.

“In fact, we’re lagging behind most of the world on this” If by most you mean more than half then I guess I am wrong when I consider there to be more than 63 countries in the world.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

On a cynical note, looks like global warming is being sorted without our involvement.

TimB says:

08:43am | 28/02/11

Note to self. “Most of world” now defined as “32 countries”.

Thanks Perse.

Adam Diver says:

09:53am | 28/02/11

@ TimB another one for our blooper real. You will have to keep track of them and we can have an awards ceremony at the end of the year.

Afraid of the water says:

10:16am | 28/02/11

Nervously looks over at TimB
In a conservative world, we would always be the last one to jump in the pool. We wouldn’t want to get it wrong would we? There is safety if everyone else jumps in first isn’t there? Doesn’t matter if we always come in last in a conservative world. Maybe I’ll just run back to the changing room and nobody will notice I didn’t jump in. If i take a shower I won’t feel quite so dirty and maybe I can trick them into thinking I jumped in.

Steve Putnam says:

10:32am | 28/02/11

How is a price of$25-$30 a tonne for carbon going to redistribute wealth? Only a fool would venture such nonsense.
The BER, though irregularities have occurred with regard to the pricing and awarding of some contracts, has been a spectacular success. Well over 90% of the work was done on time, on budget and to the satisfaction of its recipients. When you compare this with what went on under the previous government the contrast is extraordinary. Taxpayers money was given hand over fist to wealthy private schools to spend on such things as rifle ranges, Indoor basketball courts and swimming pools, while public schools lacked basic amenities.
Your paranoia about our (your) living standard is revealing. How can you claim that and then talk of IR in the next breath? Under Workchoices everything the Australian worker had achieved in 100 years; 4 weeks annual leave, overtime penalty rates, sickleave etc was taken from them at the stroke of a pen and open to renegotiation. What sort of standard of living for those forced onto work contracts with no right to collective action? This was the Tory idea of a fair go and it was chucked out by the people in 2007.
Abbott, of course, is itching to reintroduce it re-badged and undiluted but of course he like his mentor the ‘lying rodent’ will say nothing about it up front. There’s nothing to match the hypocrisy of a conservative.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

11:21am | 28/02/11

@steveputty How is a price of$25-$30 a tonne for carbon going to redistribute wealth, more to the point lefty how is charging people for carbon and then distributing it back to them going to improve the economy, greedy lefty thinking they know how to run our lives better than we do and do it with money taken from my wallet. Carbon Tax will not reduce pollution.
Also BER 90% good, there use to be a time where one cent of wastage by the gov was unacceptable now they have thrown away 2 BILLION of our money (10% of 20 Bill by your calc) and somehow that is defensible. On top of the solar scheme of course with the associated deaths.

Denny Crane says:

12:20pm | 28/02/11

Steve Putman - Catholic schools got 25% better value for money than labor state administered public schools. Independant schools got 33% beter value for money. Headmasters of public schools were intimidated into silence. They were not consulted in many instances meaning buildings delivered were inappropriate to their needs. The BER wasted between $2 - $4billion. Whats more in 5 years the left will be whinging about how much more private schools got under the BER compared to public schools. Its not fair they will whinge.

Workchoices allowed people to work hard and better their own situation. All entitlements were still available to the worker if that what they wanted. Fair work has reverted back to union controlled workplaces. Why do you think Howes was attacking Rio Tinto the other day - because Rio increased the conditions for their workers and made the role of the union redundant. he wants to get into Rio and roll back improvements so that the union is in control. Workchoices gave rights and power to the individual, fair work takes that away and gives it to the union. AWA’s were the best thing ever to happen to IR in Australia, sadly unions could not interfere so they became evil.

Funny that you should mention hypocracy. Gillard is the queen of hypocracy. Everytime she opens her mouth about IR reform and how they value the individual is laughable. She values the indivual as long as they are part of the union - who as highlighted by the Rio disgrace, are not interested in better conditions for their members - they want control.

Steve Putnam says:

01:02pm | 28/02/11

@Sir Ronald Bradnam (pompous delusions of grandeur!) So we just go on as we are consuming finite resources until they run out because if we don’t we’ll be compromising our standard of living (heaven forbid!) or endangering our budget surpless?
If you had any business nouse you would agree with me (and The Liberal Party) that the only way to effectively modify consumer behaviour is on the basis of price. Hence the need for a price on carbon. You would also be aware that a success rate of greater than 90% for the BER was never remotely matched by any projects the previous government undertook, few though they were.
For the record I’m not a lefty; I’ve been running a small business in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney for 25 years, and am all for individual enterprise—- the more the better.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

03:27pm | 28/02/11

@steveputty in your heart your a lefty no doubt. Your qoute on the BER wasnt about the previous gov the example was this gov to which I offered my opinion and the facts, undisputable.
There are not endless resources on this planet but I know that human ingenuity and need will find a way to harness the resources that are i.e. wind, solar, earth core heat, hydrogen it is a matter of time that is all.
I have a little business nouse but here is not the right forum to bang on about what I have or dont have, go back to running your wee business with all your nouse and come up with some valid ideas, opinions and arguments.

Steve Putnam says:

05:03pm | 28/02/11

@ Sir Ronald Bradnam How are we going to, as you put it , ‘find a way to harness the resources that are’ in lieu of research and development?
Costello’s first budget slashed $473 mill in tax breaks for businesses doing just that in alternative energy——all the more suss when you take into account the fact that Howard’s front bench had 16 members with coal shares.
No one is banging on here—- just pointing out that not every small business person is an environmental troglodyte. I don’t get paid anything for posting and I do under my own name because I have the courage of my convictions; something you obviously lack.

Gordy of Orange says:

09:24am | 28/02/11

Exactly right, Sherlock
My kids when they were little used to play a game of “opposite day” where every thing you said meant the exact opposite - Brendan obviously is a great fan of the game. 

Then I read his BIO and understood that he is in fact serious. Has Bruce Hawker been replaced? Brendan is an even better bull shiter.

The reality is that since taking over from the Dudd, there has been nothing she either hasnt lied about or stuffed up. If she was the person of principle as is described then she would have made the carbon tax as one of the major issues in the election.

Scarneck says:

10:26am | 28/02/11

@ thatmosis - I’ve read some crap in my 50 odd years but your comment takes the cake. “she is not interested in the Australian people or Australia but in keeping her job at all costs” - if the crock you say is true - then why did she even consider a carbon tax, knowing full well how unpopular it would be with the average brain dead citizen of Australia?

Aussie Born and Bred says:

02:54pm | 28/02/11

@ Scarneck - From here:  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/pm-vague-on-carbon-tax-hit-to-families/story-e6freon6-1226013145326

“Ms Gillard said she was forced to break her election promise that she would not introduce a carbon tax because she needed support from the Greens”. 

Julia Gillard is interested in one thing; JULIA GILLARD.

LauraBoBaura says:

04:49pm | 28/02/11

I saw that too. Hmm apparently it’s petty to be concerned about where your money goes.. who knew?

persephone says:

08:20am | 28/02/11

Sir Ronald

so you have never ever in your whole life found that you had to break a promise you made in good faith, with every intention of keeping it?

Never ever had to ring a mate and say “Look, I know I said I’d be coming around but I just can’t make it’?

What if you had to make a promise which committed you to dong something in two or three years time? Are you absolutely sure that - for example - you promised to meet me for coffee on 28 February 2014 at 2 pm that you’d be able to keep that?

Politicians, being human like the rest of us, can’t predict the future. Yet we expect them to make ‘promises’ years into the future.

Most reasonable people understand that that’s an impossible ask. They understand that obstructionist Senates, hung Parliaments, the outbreak of WWIII, whatever, gets in the way of governments delivering.

As a reasonable person, if you didn’t turn up for that coffee in three years time, I’d understand that it was a big ask to start with. If you rang me up on your way to explain that your wife had just died and alas, you had to cancel our date to attend her funeral, I’d think you were being silly thinking you had to apologise in those circumstances.

So politicians do meet the standards reasonable people live by. They can’t set a higher standard than that, because real life is a complicated thing.

Most reasonable people realise that.

Adam Diver says:

08:37am | 28/02/11

@ Pers - By most reasonable people do you mean just you, badger, acetrol and nossy?

Because everyone else outside of imaginationland, knows that circumstances have not changed, and that the PM has not provided an adequate response to her deception.

TimB says:

08:46am | 28/02/11

Perse explain to me whats stopping her from keeping her promise.

Exactly what is forcing her to legislate this. Why doesn’t she just sit and do nothing?

Easiest thing in the world.

Sherlock says:

08:49am | 28/02/11

I thought this article was funny until I read what persephoney had to say.

Likes Joining Dots says:

08:53am | 28/02/11

@Persephone

‘Never ever had to ring a mate and say “Look, I know I said I’d be coming around but I just can’t make it’?’

If I called my mate and said ‘I just can’t make it because I found a better mate, someone who can help me more than you’ - would that be a reasonable excuse?

JT says:

08:58am | 28/02/11

I doubt I am alone on this but I truly wonder for your sanity persephone. It is one thing to be partisan, cheering for ‘‘your’’ side but in post after post you give the impression you are a disciple of some Labor cult, guzzling down the kool-aid like it was oxygen.

She lied. It really is as simple as that. Circumstances have not changed, and your comparison to a mate saying he can’t come around is asinine.

This Carbon DIOXIDE tax is an attack on the very structure of our economy and is designed to hurt people for no benefit whatsoever other than to fill Labors now empty coffers.

I think what truly proves you as an ideologue is the undeniable fact (even to the loons who think AGW is real and will kill us all) is nothing Australia does even if we switch everything off tomorrow will have any impact on the world.

Dash says:

08:59am | 28/02/11

Perse, you’re really stretching it here! It’s only been 6 months!

Most reasonable people in this situation would realise that they mislead people. They would realise that people’s choices were made on a false belief. If Gillard was reasonable, she would do what Howard did with the GST and have the common decency to take this to the Australian poeple at the next election!

If as you say, there are benefits to be had, then she would have nothing to worry about. Let the people have their say. Stacking a climate committee and dressing it up as the will of the people is a disgrace!

I suspect, this lie was made with bad intention. And that is, to say whatever she needed to in order to be returned to government. This looks and smells very very bad Perse! And it is not an isolated instance of the ALP telling lies and breking promises. It’s been rife in the party since the ‘07 election.

If she is a reaonable person, fight an election over it! Don’t force it on the people under a false promise. That would be a cowardly and deceitful act.

Ted says:

09:00am | 28/02/11

Persephone “so you have never ever in your whole life found that you had to break a promise you made in good faith, with every intention of keeping it?”. Nice spin given the fact is she only made the so call promise to gain power and she had no intention of keeping it. Even if I was to believe the spin, then if she had any integrity she would have said to the Australian voters that she would bring this tax in if elected again. Whether you hate or like John Howard, at least he had the integrity to say upfront that he had changed his mind on the GST (which Keating wanted), laid out his plan for inspection and then promised to introduce it when elected. This is a stark difference to the “thief in the dark” Labor/Green approach.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

09:08am | 28/02/11

@persophone(loony lefty) yep I have broken a promise, but never one that used to achieve a personal benefit for myself.
Where do you want to meet for that coffee we can sit and discuss the first year of Malcolm Turnball as prime minister.
Most reasonable people understand that promises are a commitment and because she made a promise that got her elected and personally benefitted her she will be going to a funeral, her own political funeral.
Stop making excuses for spin, lies and unacceptable morals from our leaders. Andrew Forrest from fortescue metals has been accused of misleading investors, not lying, misleading and ASIC have gragged him through court, why is it OK for politiccians to set a standard for business leaders that they themselves break on a regular basis with no legal consequences.

persephone says:

12:57pm | 28/02/11

All politicians break promises. Have done forever.

They do this because we set up unrealistic expectations about what can be delivered.

Gillard made a promise expecting to be elected in her own right. She wasn’t. She had to compromise. Get over it.

Every single PM since the dawn of time have found themselves in that situation at some stage.

I know you guys set the bar higher for Labor - because, I suppose, we’re so much more virtuous and upright than the other parties - but get real.

Abbott would have broken election promises if he had had the chance to govern - he said as much to Tony Windsor. As it is, he’s broken election promises without even being in government!

Don’t see any of you guys out there condemning him for lying. No, you praise him for being up front and open about it.

But, as I said, their supporters don’t expect very high standards from the Liberals.

GB says:

01:19pm | 28/02/11

@pers. You’re referencing Tony Windsor? The same Tony Windsor that went against the wishes of 92% of his electorate? The same Tony Windsor who divulged details of the negotiation with Tony Abbott on forming a government just for cheap political scoring. Why doesn’t he tell us what Julia promised him or wouldn’t that be appropriate? His conduct since election night has been nothing short of disgraceful so I wouldn’t be holding him up as a beacon of virtue.

TimB says:

01:32pm | 28/02/11

Perse she promised NOT to do something.

There is nothing stopping her from NOT putting in a Carbon tax.

What are the Greens going to do? Force her at gunpoint to draft the bill?

She CHOSE to do this. she CHOSE to break her promise. She was ALWAYS going to break her promise. She made the promise to negate the Coaltion’s anti-Carbon tax campaign. If was governing in her own right she would have still broken the promise.

She lied deliberately. No amount of spin or excuses from you or her will change that fact.

jf says:

07:14pm | 28/02/11

At least you are admitting that she lied.

But you can’t justify it on the basis that circumstances have changed. Because, as far as GW is concerned, nothing has changed since the last federal election.

Have the IPCC actually released some factual, empirically sound, authentically peer reviewed, irrefutable research that proves GW is caused by man?

If so, I missed it. At this stage, it seems that the global climate has always been changing and that there is very little that we can do about it.

Really Perse, what has changed since Julia Gillard went to an election promising that there would not be a tax on carbon.

What has changed that could cause her to change her mind on an issue that she knew had the potential to change the election?

Louisa says:

09:48pm | 28/02/11

persephone obviously forgot to take her medications today… again. What a weirdo you are madam

Nick says:

07:36am | 28/02/11

Another lunatic supporter of a tax that penalises all Australians for no gain..Open your eyes Mandy or go out and talk to some hard working Aussies who are trying to get ahead in life.

acotrel says:

08:13am | 28/02/11

@Nick, Is this another version of ‘every hard working patriotic Australian knows…..) ?

Andrew says:

09:48pm | 28/02/11

Do you really run around asking people what they think of the PM??

Do these people you meet then talk about the joy of Tony Abbott as PM?? Surely not.

To all the people going absolutely apeshit about the pro Gillard article like yourself Andrew what is the alternative? You know what you dont want/like, thats the easy bit, what do you want instead? The opposition has a duty to oppose in some sense and this opposition is very good at it however I assume you want your opposition/future government to stand for and do something for YOU….....What is it that you want, can you answer without referring to the current government but telling us what your alternative is?

The Tillerman says:

09:45am | 28/02/11

Amazing how there are no conservatives flocking to save Robb from himself on the other article.
How can you get something so wrong?
Oh yes, you can be someone in the coalition wannabe finance department.
Perhaps Robb will soon disappear into an enormous blackhole of his own making and that also sucks in Hockey, Abbott and Bishop.

Aasq says:

07:04pm | 28/02/11

I’d like to see Andrew Robb as Prime Minister, Tillerman, purely out of sympathy. The Liberal Party give him all their sh!t jobs.

Remember when Abbott wouldn’t announce his pre-election budget cuts and said that Joe Hockey would release the details later at his Press Club Address ? Joe took one look at that steaming pile and flipped the hospital pass straight to poor old Andrew Robb who then had to front a press conference with them after Joe’s Press Club Address. As Katherine Murphy put it, “It was a train smash, in sequins granted, but a train smash nonetheless.”

Most humiliating of all was when Andrew had to go on Lateline and pretend that the billion dollars Tony Abbott had offered to Andrew Wilkie for a hospital was still part of their budget, “win or lose office”.

TONY JONES: ... Does that offer of the $1 billion for the Hobart hospital remain on the table? I mean is that a commitment you’ve actually made to the people of Hobart, or is it just a bargaining chip for an independent?

ANDREW ROBB: No, that was a decision that we took to put on the table win or lose, win or lose office.

TONY JONES: So that’s there now, that’s now in your costings, is it? $1 billion, a definite guaranteed offer to the people of Hobart for their hospital?

ANDREW ROBB: That is now a project which we will factor into our long-term spending program, along with the other major infrastructure programs that we’ve got…

TONY JONES: Is it a commitment…

ANDREW ROBB: We’ve got a prospect…

TONY JONES: I’m just trying to understand is it a commitment to the people of Hobart, that there’s a $1 billion…

ANDREW ROBB: ... that’s what I just said…

TONY JONES: ... on offer from your government?

ANDREW ROBB: I thought I just confirmed that, Tony, yes.

No wonder Robb feels so little compunction around his “colleagues”.

Peter says:

08:05am | 28/02/11

Holly you must be delusional if you call this article balanced..The only people supporting a carbon tax are idiots who want to feel warm and fuzzy about the environment and a socialist government who is deceiving them so that it can introduce a new tax so it can redistribute wealth.

Dash says:

08:16am | 28/02/11

What??? The ALP has been in government for over 3 years Daniel!!! WTF have they been doing?

Fuel prices higher, grocery prices higher, child care higher, housing costs higher, utilities higher, interest rates higher, record federal debt, record budget defecits, insulation fiascos, school hall rorts, green loans nonsense.

Grocery choice promise - broken
Fuel watch promise - broken
East Timor solution - never existed
Root and Branch tax reform - not delivered
260 childcare centre promise - broken
Coast guard promise - never delivered
Cheaper books for all Australians - promise never delivered
We wont touch the private health tax rebate promise - broken
We’ll deliver more affordable housing - never delivered
We’ll deliver cheaper better childcare - never delivered
Education revolution = rorting of taxpayers money by ALP backed builders

All of those failures must be due to the “right wing media” eh Daniel!

I think we can do without this kind of ALP “work” don’t you?

Rosie says:

10:47am | 28/02/11

Exactly Dash - WTF - The Liar Gillard resorts to “pragmatism” and her loyal fans because there is nothing for them to defend Gillard resorts to telling Australians to give Gillard a chance! Joke of the year! Get lost and go and find something to add to the debate, lie like your hero if you have to.

TimB says:

04:57pm | 28/02/11

Here’s a video you can relate to Daniel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV41-vuw1sE

simon says:

02:29pm | 28/02/11

Nice work Joel B1, and at the Cancun climate agreement last year we signed up to commit billions of dollars into a global climate fund. This is where a large chunk of the carbon tax will go. Disgraceful.

Against the Man says:

10:21pm | 28/02/11

HaHa I wonder what TChong and Rob Whatever have to say about this? Gillard is the worst fake PM of Australia and Rudd is the worst real PM; between these 2 dodos we have never been more screwed as a country.

AdamC says:

08:36am | 28/02/11

Good point, Charles. I was watching an interview with the CEO of Bluescope Steel yesterday and, while he obviously isn’t a neutral observer, he made quite a lot of sense. In particular, he noted the pointlessness of effectively exporting carbon emissions by taxing internal manufacturers for their emissions but not taxing imports.

It is interesting that a Labor government would implement policies that send a wrecking ball through local manufacturing. This is especially the case given that any unilateral carbon reductions will have merely symbolic value.

Dash says:

08:23am | 28/02/11

Shane, you are wrong! The ALP loots the hard working Australian PAYG taxpayer. It punishes those who are creating the nations wealth and redistributes it to those that are destroying it. This is not a Hawke Keating styled ALP. It is the most Socialist government in the nations history!

At least the LNP under Howard balanced the budget and paid off $96 billion in ALP debt. then once the books were in surplus, gave something back to the taxpayers of this country.

this government is out to destroy us. It is run by the same fools who destroyed NSW.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:57am | 28/02/11

@Dash- and the Liberal Party doesn’t loot the hard working PAYG taxpayer? Pull the other one. Middle Class welfare is simply a redistribution of wealth from one section of society to another. We won’t go into the LNP wholesale looting, sorry, privatization of government assets, to balance budgets.

Steve Putnam says:

10:41am | 28/02/11

@Dash anyone can pay off a $96 billion debt by selling off $200 billion worth of assetts like the Liberals did.

DAsh says:

10:43am | 28/02/11

Shane, the fact of the matter is that the LNP balanced the budget! And they delivered 5 consecutive years of tax cuts to the PAYG taxpayer! Since the ALP has been in power, we’ve had profits tax, flood tax and now carbon tax!

I was much better off as a significant PAYG taxpayer under the LNP than I am now. All hard working family people were!

Our cost of living expenses have already gone up significantly and the ALP is now following a policy that will make it much much worse! And they are doing so on a lie! Not to mention the fact that they have racked up the biggest budget defecit in the nations history and wasted billions!

The agenda being followed by the Gillard ALP is the most socialist agenda in the ALPs history.

The Howard government ran surplus budgets, restored the nations AAA rating, produced full employment, GDP growth greater than any other Western nation, and was still able to give something back to tax payers!

The fools that destroyed NSW are now moving to Canberra. They have put Gillard into power and are now looking to do the same nationally as they have done in NSW. it’s a disgrace!

acotrel says:

08:16am | 28/02/11

@Dash
‘They won the election on the back of a deceitful lie!’
No, she won the election because Abbott wasn’t good enough!

Dash says:

08:43am | 28/02/11

acotrel, if she had been honest and told us that the ALP intended to implement a carbon tax, they would not have been in a position to claim government. They didn’t win, but they were in a position to bribe the independents. They do not have a mandate, on the basis of a lie, to implement this tax!

Abbott has nothing to do with Gillard and Swan’s deceit of the Australian public! You should be ashamed of yourself supporting such bastardry!

TimB says:

08:47am | 28/02/11

No Acotrel, I’m pretty sure it was the lie.

An election framed around the question of an ETS/Carbon tax would have been a lost election for Labor.

Aasq says:

09:48am | 28/02/11

So you voted for Labor too, Dash ? This is getting better all the time !

TimB says:

10:18am | 28/02/11

And your statements get sillier all the time AASQ.

How is it that you can so glaringly miss the pont?

Aasq says:

02:40pm | 28/02/11

If, as you and Dash claim, Tim, Labor “won the election on the back of a deceitful lie”, then people like you and Dash must have voted for them.

TimB says:

06:03pm | 28/02/11

Do you and logic even have a passing aquaintance?

Aasq says:

07:17pm | 28/02/11

That’s how elections are won, Tim. People vote for one party rather than another. If, as you and Dash claim, Labor won the election because of their carbon tax policy, then you’re saying that people who would otherwise have voted for the Coalition must have voted for Labor.

jf says:

07:20pm | 28/02/11

TimB says:06:03pm | 28/02/11

“Do you and logic even have a passing aquaintance? “

It seems not. However, I have two young children so may be able to explain it to our funny little friend.

At the last election, if someone wanted to vote for a party that was not going to introduce a carbon tax, they could have voted for either the ALP or the LNP.

Just because the ALP told the electorate that they weren’t going to introduce a carbon tax doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone who didn’t want a carbon tax would then have voted for the ALP on that basis. They could have voted for the other party that wasn’t going to introduce a carbon tax.

TimB says:

07:37pm | 28/02/11

“then you’re saying that people who would otherwise have voted for the Coalition must have voted for Labor. “

Yes. Now how in hell do you jump from that to me and Dash *specifically*  must have voted Labor?

This is where whatever logical reasoning you have flies out the window.

I know you’re trying to be a smartass or something but it makes no sense and is really just plain sad.

Aasq says:

07:55pm | 28/02/11

Thanks, jf. Perhaps now Tim and Dash will stop claiming that Labor won the election because of their carbon tax policy, but I doubt it.

TimB says:

08:46pm | 28/02/11

You really are thick AASQ.

Scenario: Random groups of Labor voters in key seats.They like Labor’s shiny NBN. Are a little wary of Tony Abbott. Intend to vote for Labor

Then they find out Labor are planning to hit them with another tax. They decide they don’t like this. And in compariosn, they decide none of the other stuff is important.  Tony will not be taxing them so they decide to switch their votes from Labor to Liberal.

A few key groups of voters vote differently in a few key seats and all of a sudden Tony wins the election. By lying about her policy intentions Julia prevents some voters from dumping her on this issue. And yes the carbon tax is that unpopular, the scenario isn’t that farfetched.

Do you understand now?

PS. To be absolutely clear because you seem to struggle with the concept: The above does not apply to me. Or Dash. We were already voting Liberal for a whole host of other reasons. This does not prevent others from changing their votes.

Aasq says:

11:11pm | 28/02/11

Tim’s fantasies are getting even weirder now, jf, as you can see.

Funny how he still seems to think that Labor’s carbon tax policy was a good enough reason for “others” to change their votes, yet mysteriously, not good enough for him or Dash.

TimB says:

08:33am | 01/03/11

Why would we need to change our votes?

We were already voting for the Coalition. That doesn’t stop Gillard’s raising of a carbon tax being the final catalyst needed for on-the-edge Labor voters to switch to the Coalition.

Why is this concept so hard for you understand? Are you really that simple, or are you just a troll?

Aasq says:

09:05am | 01/03/11

So if Labor’s carbon tax policy wasn’t a good enough reason for you to change your vote, Tim, why would it have been for “others” ?

john says:

09:14am | 28/02/11

@Elphaba, its been there a long time and solidified, a jackhammer is needed.

Elphaba says:

09:27am | 28/02/11

@john, hahahahaha, a jackhammer to the face…

Robbo says:

10:48am | 28/02/11

Being that carbon dioxide is 1 part carbon 2 parts oxygen it should really be referred to by its majority element - so its actually a tax on oxygen.
They finally found a way to tax you for breathing!!

MarK says:

09:39am | 28/02/11

“....when Australia has been left behind by not joining in the future world low carbon economy. “

Bruhahahhahahahahahahaha

Yeh like Germany that created all those green jobs at $240k each subsidies.

Or Spain backtracking as fast as it can from the disaster.

Awesome.

LAWL

Geoff Brown says:

09:41am | 28/02/11

Ms Gillard is not too smart for the Labor/Green Coalition and in particular to the chap who purports to lead them Bob Brown

Ripa says:

02:56pm | 28/02/11

@nossy

“he hasnt landed one punch on Gillard yet and isnt likely too”
who needs to land a punch, gillard is drowning just fine all by herself.

Bruce says:

03:22pm | 28/02/11

nossy: Where else would you go with: “no carbon tax under a government I lead ?”  Juliar can not be taken seriously to address any issue on climate change. She does even know her self. As for landing a punch on Abbott, I would have thought that the coalition actually delivered a knock out blow to Juliar, forcing her into a hybrid unmanageable 5 headed green led government. Not to mention the last statistic I heard was that Juliar only got 32% of the national vote !

john says:

10:46am | 28/02/11

@The Badger its more of the political fight of the century, not so certain about the sunshine,rainbows and lollypops you envisage. This fight will be much broader and more hostile than the GST fight, it will be fun.

We need this carbon tax so we can all be entertained by this huge political fight, I’ve got pop corn in one hand and a fizzy drink in the other, and flatscreen in front watching the boxing ring house of reps.

AnthonyG says:

11:11am | 28/02/11

We are upset because fools like you are costing us a fortune.Labor fell in, in the election thanks to lies and a couple of greenie turn coat independants . This country needs a revolution.

Ben81 says:

01:07pm | 28/02/11

Oh god, of all the people to talk about “no substance”.
It’s pretty much your trademark Badger, as usual everyone is talking about the topic at hand and you come in and say ‘NO’ a few times and remind everyone that you don’t like the Liberal party.  You’re out of your depth.

john says:

10:20am | 28/02/11

@ Democrat if your referring Goebels Jones to ‘allan jones’ 2GB you’d be hard-pressed to find many people under 80 that listen to him.

Radio jockeys are so 1980’s, and these-days are usually old farts with a load mouth, deluded to think they have any power of swaying opinion. Not relevant to 2011 mobile online information age. Newspapers are given away for free at fitness first gyms and no one takes them home to read because by the time it goes from print to reader its already really old news. I might take one if I need to paint to catch the drips.

Dash says:

10:52am | 28/02/11

Ha ha ha Badger. How would the economy look if it had been still burdened by the $96 billion of ALP debt which Howard and Costello paid off? How would the economy have looked without the future fund and $26 billion in surplus for the ALP to throw around? How would the economy have faired without the Howard governments Financial Services reform Act ensuring we did not suffer the same toxic assets as the US and Europe? We had full employment under Howard! We had our AAA rating restored by Howard. We had consistent budget surpluses and 5 consecutive years of PAYG tax cuts. Compare that to now Badger:

Record budget defecit
Record levels of public debt
Grocery prices up
fuel prices up
Electricity prices up
water prices up
interest rates up
Childcare costs up
Home affordability down
three new taxes
Record levels of spending on consultancies
rorting of taxpayers money (refer school halls)
deaths under the governments insulation fiasco
green loans nonsense
raft of election promises scrapped
$11billion in bribes to independents to buy government
And a compulsive liar as PM.

That’s what you support?? Why Bagder. Are you on the ALP take?

The Badger says:

11:19am | 28/02/11

Oh Dash
How is that Warren Truss site going? Got more disinformation I see. When will you Nationals realise why the independents are taking all your votes. It’s because you lost the plot.
Australia, with an economy the envy of the world.
Labor, carefully and confidently steering her forward, through economic uncertainty and environmental crisis.
What’s that you wanted dash? Australia in recession? People out of work? Polluters doing business as usual?  A one trick pony as PM?

TimB says:

12:13pm | 28/02/11

“When will you Nationals realise why the independents are taking all your votes.”

Badger, watch closely to what happens to the Independents at the NSW election next month.

Thanks to Windsor & Oakeshott, they’re going to be stomped.

Greens should cop a beating too. And as for Labor…well, we all know what’s going to happen there.

26 days to go!

bobw says:

01:07pm | 28/02/11

Well, the bookies disagree with you there, TimB.  Centrebet has Peter Besseling at $1.30 in Port Mac, with his NP challenger out at $3.20.  I’m not sure what Windsor and Oakeshott are even supposed to have in common with the various other Independents who are in the running for lower house seats.

It stands to reason that the Coalition, the Greens and numerous independents will all benefit from a collapse in the ALP vote.

TimB says:

01:39pm | 28/02/11

BobW, Simon Benson can explain it better than I can:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/simonbenson/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/state_poll_will_call_rob_oakeshott_and_tony_windsor_to_account/

I’m actually rather amazed at those odds you quoted.  Especially considering Besseling’s links to Oakeshott & the anger of the Port residents over the federal result.

We’ll see what happens won’t we.

Dash says:

01:54pm | 28/02/11

Badger, I’m no National! Unlike you, I am not a member of any political party. I’m nothing more than a concerned taxpayer that expects better from my government!

“There will be no carbon tax” - any disinformation there Badger? Perhaps “The Hypocrite” would be a better description.

You consider wasting taxpayers money on insulation fiascos and allowing it to be rorted under the school halls program careful and confident economic management?? You consider record levels of federal debt and the largest budget defecit in the nations history good economic management?

You support a PM who constantly lies for political gain and an ALP who continually over promise and under deliver. You want to support a bunch who deliberately mislead the people of Australia in order to retain power. And to make matters worse, you want to tell us that mismanagement is “carefully steering us forward”. What a load of cr@p!

bobw says:

02:02pm | 28/02/11

@TimB:  We will indeed; in the absence of local polling it’s hard to know for sure.  Thanks for the link.  The idea that there might be an “independent brand” is somewhat paradoxical, and it’d be a bit sad if independent candidates suffered a backlash at State level because of the perceived sins of unrelated (or at most semi-related) individuals on a different plane of government altogether.

Anyway, at those odds, you could make yourself some cash if you’re confident about your instincts on Besseling

The Badger says:

03:13pm | 28/02/11

Dash
Life is good isn’t it?
Australia cruising along leading the world in sound financial management and joining in to do our part to combat AGW.

Just FYI, because you obviously missed it previously.
I am not a member of any party nor would I be a member of a party that would have me as a member.
I am for any party that is not conservative in nature.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.
Alfred E. Wiggam
A conservative is a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits.
Woodrow Wilson

Bloggs says:

04:36pm | 28/02/11

The economy is only the envy of the ALP, the Greens and a few non-Independents in Australia, dear Badger.  Certainly no the envy of a large part of the world who would scream blue murder at the level of tax we are forced to pay.

Labor is certainly NOT carefully and NOT confidently steering any damn thing at all.  It is the Greens who are sterring us blindly into oblivion - did you not see that smug Broiwn bloke standing over Gillard as she announced the Greens tax on carbon?  Who is steering this ship really? Gillard or the Unions?  Not bloody likely, dear Badger.

Dear me, you ARE easily fooled.  But then, you voted ALP didn’t you?  ‘nuff said!

Richard says:

06:28pm | 28/02/11

” As of 6:24pm 28/02/2011
Centrebet Odds for NSW State Election
Port Macquarie Electorate - WINNER  
BESSELING, Peter (IND)  1.80
WILLIAMS, Leslie (NAT)  1.90 “

Seems like the market has considerably tightened since you pointed this anomaly out, bobw. As it will continue I do suspect, because ALL the smart money is on the Nats to win that seat back in light of Sooky Sooky Jokeshott’s antics this term.

TimB says:

07:45pm | 28/02/11

Well there you go. I guess that settles it.

I knew I should have looked this up myself (I’m far too trusting ), thanks Richard.

bobw says:

09:00pm | 28/02/11

Interesting, Richard.  The $3.20 figure was published in the weekend SMH - perhaps a few people saw that and thought it was worth a plunge, hence the tightening.  It did seem generous given that Besseling isn’t sitting on a huge margin.

Some of the other figures have moved as well.  Tebbutt has blown out from $2.25 to $4.00 in Marrickville, with the Greens candidate coming in to $1.22.  Independent John Tate is firming to take Newcastle from the ALP incumbent, Jodi McKay.

You have to laugh at the “overall winner” market:

COALITION $1.03
ALP $12.00

I still don’t think it makes much sense to hold the actions of one (federal) independent against another (state) independent, even if there’s an element of alignment (as in the Oakeshott/Besseling case).  It will happen - different people make different connections - but it remains to be seen whether it’s a gamechanger.

MarK says:

10:17pm | 28/02/11

The local paper had the odds today at the first quote here. Evryone in the office was trying to get on the Nats at 2.30.

They also said that that the Liberals were even money to win the state election. if anyone can show me where I can get a piece of that I will have my right one on it.

Oh…Besseling is a top guy, but he was Oakeshotts staffer for years and Oakeshott endorsed him last election.

Poor bugger.

simon says:

02:08pm | 28/02/11

Don’t forget that every persons superannuation will be hit very hard by this pathetic carbon tax.

Steve Smith says:

05:31am | 01/03/11

Simon
Typical Liberal scaremongering by your comment, where is your proof to back up your comment that the ‘carbon tax’ will affect or hit every persons super.

Bloggs says:

02:04pm | 28/02/11

Joel B1, This argument will convince no one.  Giant cyclone, floods, fire, rain and wind, plague of rats and non-one wants to build the ark except Gillard and a few socialist, spread-the-wealth, Green-led, fools.

What a terrible world we live in.

I will reiterate what you have already said…. It was always thus!

Nowhere near as bad and fierce (note, you can’t spell)?? Really?  The 1974 flood was worse and man management of the dams will have influenced this one a bit. What about the floods of last century? Were these really worse?  Nature varies in her intensity but the minute differences we make with CO2 are not the undoing of the world’s climate.

The recent Icelandic volcano put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all your pollutants rolled together.  Are you really sure nature and her furious manner is not actually to blame for the weather?

It’s easy to believe what Gillard says, if you are gullible to believe with no evidence - or want to cook the evidence to suit yourself.

What about the coal she sends overseas?  Will that not produce carbon? Will Gillard tax the Chinese too? No, the big hypocrite will just rake in the taxes of the mining industry, tax the proletariat and tax everything in sight.

This is more about socialism and spreading the wealth than real climate agendas.  What Australia does will make no difference, and no-one will follow us.  But they WILL laugh at us for being so damn stupid.

Joel B1 says:

05:30pm | 28/02/11

Bloggs,Sorry,  I understand your passion, I was trying to be too smart.

The quote is a rant from the ABC. The nutter who wrote it reckons the NZ earthquakes are man-made. The ABC will publish any shit as long as it’s pro-ALP or Green.

Obviously I loathe that lying *&^%$#$ Gillard.

Bloggs says:

07:49pm | 28/02/11

Joel B1.  Concur!  I owe you a beer!

Bloggs says:

07:50pm | 28/02/11

Well said.  I like your thinking here!

Bloggs says:

02:39pm | 28/02/11

Agreed, Wilma.  And remember that the Pink Batts Death Dealing Program was pushed under the carpet with no-one being held accountable for the deaths; no-one at all.

When this is over no-one again will be held accountable because in the ALP, there is no accountability. 

Fortunately the Australian public can hold her accountable at the next election.  I vote the send the Greens and the ALP home with their tails between their legs.

Against the Woman says:

08:54pm | 28/02/11

I know the ETS was originally John Howard’s policy, GB, but can’t you just let him retire in peace.

simon says:

03:24pm | 28/02/11

Tony Windsor is the one who will do anything for power, he was never gonna back the coalition even though he never told his electorate that. He is just a manipulative liar like Gillard. They make a nice couple don’t you think??

Nossy, do you spend your whole day on The Punch looking for tidbits to substantiate your rantings. Oh sorry I forgot your a lefty, probably on the dole and never worked a day in your life. Silly me!!!

Mal says:

03:39pm | 28/02/11

If Abbot would do anything for power then what on earth did Julia offer?

bobw says:

03:53pm | 28/02/11

@Mal:  A less capricious approach to governance, perhaps?  I think that’s what Windsor is getting at.

nossy says:

04:15pm | 28/02/11

@simon 3.24pm rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - oh that was catty Simon ! You cut me to the quik !  hahaha Retired self funded retiree fella - ex advertising/promotional - made a packet !

Mal says:

04:20pm | 28/02/11

Bobw. Please. He didn’t offer to break a promise otherwise Windsor would be yelling it out. She did.

bobw says:

05:13pm | 28/02/11

@Mal:  Relevance?  Windsor’s observations were not about JG, or his negotiations with her.  Rather, he was pointing out that his impression was that TA would have shifted his position on climate change policy - potentially radically - if doing so would have secured a working Parliamentary majority.  If Windsor is right, it strongly suggests that all of TA’s current ranting and raving is just so much hot air - produced by weathervane populism rather than serious engagement with the policy issues at stake.

fairsfair says:

05:15pm | 28/02/11

@Nossy and don’t you know how to sell youself! You haven’t lost it champ

nossy says:

05:43pm | 28/02/11

@fairsfair - coming from the prettiest gel on the blog - thanks FF !

Mal says:

05:49pm | 28/02/11

bobw.  you don’t mind reading a bit into it do you?  Maybe he wouldn’t prostitute himself like she did.  “less capricious” - are you off with the fairies - everything about the carbon tax is the height of capricious.  She will do whatever it takes to stay in power.  If Bob Brown wants it her will get it.  She is the knifer who promised her support.

bobw says:

06:45pm | 28/02/11

@Mal:  Putting aside whether or not I’m “reading a bit into it”, at least I’m reading it.  Are we talking about Windsor’s observations or not?  I repeat:  Windsor’s comments were not about JG.  His obvious impression was that TA was, in fact, prepared to “prostitute himself”.  You might be predisposed to mistrusting Windsor, but is it so hard to understand what he said?

Bloggs says:

07:57pm | 28/02/11

Geez, reading this tripe simply proves that fools are found under every rock on this planet.  You clearly fail to appreciate that this is not Gillard at all.  The answer is very clear - Brown said do it or I stop my support and you lose your power…. the real power behind the throne is that Brown fool.  And he WILL stuff the country up unless we get rid of him.  Come next election, Gillard and those Green and Independent fools will mostly be looking for a job, in opposition or not at all.

As for Windsor, anyone who believes anything that comes out of his mouth is extremely gullible.  But then, you DID vote ALP, didn’t you? ‘nuff said….

bobw says:

09:29pm | 28/02/11

@Bloggs:  Could you please make it more clear what “tripe” you think you’re referring to?  Because when you just show up spouting a generic anti-ALP/Greens/Independents line having no obvious relevance to preceding discussion, it’s hard to know whether you’re trying to talk to someone or simply talking to yourself.

Anyway, unless you have the gift of telepathy or are actually Christine Milne - which I doubt - I’m not sure what your claim of privity to the discussions of the MPCCC is based on.  Given that there wasn’t much distance between the ALP and the Greens on the general shape of climate change policy to begin with, compromise seems a more plausible explanation than blackmail for the limited agreement reached thus far.  But if you insist on your absurd conspiracy theory, ask yourself this:  do you seriously think Bob Brown and the Greens would consider bringing down the government given that one of the consequences would potentially be to hand control of climate change policy to Tony Abbott?

Mal says:

07:57am | 01/03/11

bobw.  That tool Windsor ponced around for 17 days pretending that he might support the group that he hated.  You used the word “capricious” - that is exactly the description of her.  Who cares what Windsor’s vague view of history is?  She got power and lets Brown run the show.  She’s not leading, just doing whatever it takes to be in power.