“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…”

Hey Tony, pull your socks up. Photo: Getty Images.

Those are the most famous fighting words in modern history, uttered by Britain’s war-time Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill.

They inspired a nation to ultimate victory, but these days if he were an Australian Prime Minister or Opposition Leader, he could be talking about the Gillard Government’s controversial carbon tax.

In our case, Opposition leader Tony Abbott and his troops are fighting in the fish markets, they are fighting in the coal mines and in the construction trenches; Julia Gillard is leading the defence in the shopping malls, she is fighting in the town hall forums and right there on our TV screens.

But so far according to the opinion polls, the Opposition has taken the high ground and the pro-carbon tax forces are fighting an uphill battle. Just like Winston, both sides have declared they will never surrender.

I’ll probably cop flak for comparing Britain’s darkest hour with the carbon tax debate, but the PM provided some inspiration for that herself during the Brisbane public forum on Wednesday night when she attributed another quote to Churchill.

Asked why she was now introducing a carbon tax when she had promised on the eve of the last election, “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” she replied: “I think it was Winston Churchill who said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?”

Oops. She has recently admitted that the changing facts in this instance were represented by Bob Brown and the Greens pushing for a carbon tax.

But it wasn’t Churchill who said that in the first place. It was famous British economist John Maynard Keynes and it was used more recently by a prominent Australian scientist Dr David Evans to explain why he had changed his mind on the issue of climate change.

Dr Evans was a former global warming true believer who worked on computer carbon modelling for the Australian Greenhouse Office until he eventually came to the conclusion there was no evidence in the upper atmosphere to support the theory of man-made climate change.

But quotes don’t win or lose a war and we are all in for a continuing verbal assault until the matter is eventually resolved by an election. Hopefully.

Meanwhile, journalists who were told by Ms Gillard to “stop writing crap” about the proposed carbon tax have found an unlikely ally in Federal Member for Flynn, Ken O’Dowd.

“If she wants the media to stop writing crap, maybe she should stop speaking it,” O’Dowd said. He has repeatedly referred to his electorate as “ground zero” in terms of likely impacts from the carbon tax.

Ms Gillard was asked about how the media had handled the debate over the government’s planned tax during her address to the National Press Club last week.

“I think we will have a long debate about media ethics in this country but if I could put it as clearly as I can, I would say to you, ‘Don’t write crap. Can’t be that hard’,” she said.

But O’Dowd said yesterday that apparently any reporting which did not support the carbon tax was regarded as “crap” by Ms Gillard even though all major opinion polls continued to show a big majority of Australians were opposed to it.

“It explains why the government plans to spend $12 million of taxpayers’ money on an advertising campaign in a desperate attempt to try to sell their dodgy Greens – Labor carbon dioxide tax,” O’Dowd said.

Another $13 million would be spent on “propaganda mail-outs” and pro-carbon tax websites.

“People aren’t stupid, they know this new tax will increase their cost of living, threaten their jobs, their small businesses and our major mining and manufacturing industries.

“They know it will not change the world climate while our major competitors do not have a carbon tax.

“As Australia emits just 1.4 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, how can reducing that by 5 per cent, 20 per cent or even 100 per cent change anything?” he asked.

It’s a question which many ordinary Australians would like answered, faced with the confusing prospect of a government hell-bent on a scheme which will apparently taketh with one hand, giveth with the other while many receiveth nought and the climate changeth regardless.

Or as O’Dowd added: All pain for no gain.

154 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Against the Man says:

      05:53am | 19/07/11

      The only way to punish Gilltard the liar is to keep the pressure on at full blast smile

      Love the poll results (if you remember I’ve been promoting hammering her at the polls since late April!)

      Keep up the shouting and yelling! Protest as much as you can and want especially since Juliar is ignoring the wishes of the masses!

      Put pressure on your ALP MPs/Ministers etc! Send Anna Bligh a nice parting gift, she has already lost the election!

      Don’t give Gilltard any breathing space, time to turn the heat up a notch smile

    • JohnB says:

      06:57am | 19/07/11

      I’m with you Against the Man. Force them out otherwise we are just being treated as we deserve to be. If we accept a blatant lie we’ll accept it the next and the next time. NEVER again. Send a clear message that we want our politicians to move towards integrity (the best we can ask for…baby steps). Also send a message that they WILL do what we as an electorate want them to do, not what they as individuals want to do. This is not an example of good leadership “the right thing to do….pleeeeeeaaaase”,.......... this is arrogant political agenda.

      How did you get Erick’s spot?

    • Damocles says:

      08:24am | 19/07/11

      @Against the Man & JohnB…....couldn’t agree more, keep up the pressure! Don’t take these lies lying down! I have sent an email of protest to the PM, Deputy PM and every Labor/ Green MP and Labor/ Green Senator and Independent, worded thus:- “Dear Minister/ Senator,
      As a patriotic Australian citizen, who believes in true democracy, I feel compelled to register my protest at the Labor/ Green/ Independents intended imposition of their beloved Carbon Tax on Australia…............. no matter what!
      This arrogant decision goes against all that democracy stands for. 
      Quoting Abraham Lincoln,
      “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
      You DO NOT have a mandate to force such an extreme tax on us, the people.
      If you wish to introduce such an onerous tax and feel that you have the support of the majority of Australians, I call on you to take it to an election.
      Let the Australian people have a voice about Australia’s future!
      You ignore us at your political peril.”
      I urge every free thinking, freedom loving, loyal Australian to email, email, email…........load up there inboxes to bursting! They must not be allowed to shanghai our democratic rights. They are now not the preferred government. We should not have to wait 2 years to kick this rabble out on their collective arses!

    • No 1 Rosie says:

      08:28am | 19/07/11

      Yes ATM we must get the 34% that haven’t the slightest idea about the carbon tax because they haven’t been told or heard about it. Gosh where are they holidaying I want to go there.

      Seriously, if Gillard won’t seek a mandate for her carbon tax, what you have suggested is the way to go! Then again if we had Elections tomorrow Labor would end up with only 30 seats in the House of Reps, powerless Opposition and a free reign for Tony Abbott.

    • TChong says:

      08:42am | 19/07/11

      Coo-ee to Dinki Di Damocles
      Heres another quote
      “Patriotism and scandrels”  i’m sure you know the rest.

    • persephone says:

      08:45am | 19/07/11

      Agitate all you want. The government’s there for the next two years at least, and the worse the polling, the less likely it is to go to an early election.

      By which time, the carbon price will have gone through parliament and be in operation, and many of the fears about it proven to be incorrect.

      Already we’re seeing industries which lobbied against it on the basis that it was going to send them offshore or affect their profits admit that they were mistaken in these beliefs.

      As for the ‘blatant lying’, most of you seem to believe that TA won’t honour his promise to take action on climate change - in other words, you’re saying we should replace one liar (your words, not mine) with another (but that’s OK, because you know he’s lying).

      The government had a mandate to introduce a CPRS. The Opposition defied that mandate. But you don’t criticise them for that, even though polls at the time said that the majority of people wanted action on climate change.

      Governments should not govern on the basis of polling. They should operate on the basis of what’s best for the country. And every reputable scientist and economist out there tells them that a carbon price is absolutely essential.

    • JohnB says:

      09:31am | 19/07/11

      “what’s best for the country. And every reputable scientist and economist out there tells them that a carbon price is absolutely essential”...What a load of rubbish persephone.

      No, what the scientists say is that carbon is harming the environment. That is the science; that is the facts.

      The reality is a tax won’t stop the rest of fossil fuels being used. The electorate is smart enough to have worked out they are being conned.

    • John Smythe says:

      09:40am | 19/07/11

      ZOMG…pers returns!

      Welcome back Pers!

    • andy says:

      10:00am | 19/07/11

      Exactly. Because what is important here is to “punish gillard”. Your own personal partisan satisfaction is far more important than what happens to the country as a whole.

    • jb says:

      10:08am | 19/07/11

      I totally agree, we have this one opportunity to let all politicians from all parties know that you can’t fuck with us anymore or we will bring you down.
      Australia unite and we really can make this the new paradigm and change politics in this country for the better.
      Could the independents actually be right on this one?
      Don’t lie to us, don’t treat us like idiots and don’t Mugg us!

    • persephone says:

      10:19am | 19/07/11

      Thanks, John Smythe.

      Returned yesterday.

    • Mouse says:

      10:20am | 19/07/11

      Persephone, and who would these industries be that have now admitted that they were “mistaken”? And what packages has the government offered them to change their minds?

      The government has no mandate on any carbon tax. Rudd’s CRPS, (that gillard wanted dropped because she thought it would lose Labor the elction, then knifed Rudd over it) never went forward.  She also stated that a carbon price would be put to a citizen’s assembly and, if there was a concensus, it would be brought to the 2013 election.  So the elction went ahead with the full understanding that there would be no carbon tax with a Labor government. The current government we have is not one voted for by the people but one brought about by the back room deals gillard did with the Greens and Independants. In other words, gillard had NO mandate on a carbon tax or even a CPRS.
      . “And every reputable scientist and economist out there tells them that a carbon price is absolutely essential.”  So Dr Evans is no longer reputable? What about Ian Plimer, Tim Patterson, Nir Shaviv,  Nicola Scafetta, Garth Paltridge, and the list goes on. They would be happy to know, I am sure,  that they are no longer reputable!

      Who are “most of you” that don’t believe TA will honour his promise to take action on climate change?  This is a pretty broad statement. Do you mean the Direct Action that can be stopped or adapted to changed climatic conditions or scientific research that arise? Not like the carbon tax that will be so ingrained that it will take millions of dollars to get rid of.  DA must be pretty good as gillard is starting to incorporate more and more of it into her climate change actions.

      gillard is now playing with words, carbon tax/price. Two different actions with two different results. If she thinks that Australians’ are stupid, she is dead wrong!

    • Martin says:

      10:28am | 19/07/11

      Yes I agree, they need to hear our message loud and clear. Gillard looked extremely worried yesterday on Sky News in the morning. She also had an air of despair. Paul Howes came out in support of the Carbon tax, but he looked most rattled. The cracks are starting to appear, at 26% primary vote I’d say the back benchers are screaming.. Something is going to give here, if the polls continue at this level, Labor will do something drastic to reverse the trend, there is no way that the Labor MP’s are going to sit there month after month at 26%.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      10:53am | 19/07/11

      If a members of a certain maligned reilgious group were to speak and write in the manner of the anti-CO2 pollution lunatics - threatening violence against a democratically elected government - ASIO would be investigating them.

    • John Smythe says:

      11:06am | 19/07/11

      @pers…yesterday was public holiday in the land of the glowing rocks.
      wa~i!

    • RyaN says:

      11:17am | 19/07/11

      @persephone: “Already we’re seeing industries which lobbied against it on the basis that it was going to send them offshore or affect their profits admit that they were mistaken in these beliefs.” evidence please?

      I can tell you my phone has been ringing off the hook, fact is that now that this communist government is going to victimise any company that tries to save itself from this carbon tax by off-shoring, a sense of urgency has now come across companies to get all of it done BEFORE the carbon dioxide tax comes in.

      Same goes for electricity companies, NSW allowed a 17% increase pre-carbon dioxide tax to allow them to absorb the impact of the carbon dioxide tax without blaming it on the carbon dioxide tax. Fact is people, this last 17% increase was a direct result of the carbon dioxide tax, just by stealth.

      Expect to see many, many job losses in the next 12 months, I can guarantee you that.

    • Glenn says:

      11:45am | 19/07/11

      Why does everyone think the carbon tax or Mr Abbotts NO NO , or the fact that Ms Gillard or Mr Abbott or Mr Howard lied or what Keating or what Hawke said , is the reality here.

      The Greens want the carbon tax just as much as Labor, why has their vote not fallen through the floor, nor for that matter not risen either.

      The reality is the vast majority of people for various reasons have switched off the Gillard Govt , however this time the Greens are not seen as the alternate.

    • scaper... says:

      11:53am | 19/07/11

      Oh dear, the person that saturates threads with her inane thought process is back. Also a low level troll that destroys this place.

      Obviously suffers from attention deficit disorder.

      As a reader that appreciates well thought out arguments from both sides, time to move on.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      12:33pm | 19/07/11

      Persephone, it was not the coalition who stopped the CPRS, remember, several coalition members crossed the floor to vote IN FAVOUR of that stupid scheme… it was your new bedfellows, the Greens who blocked it in the Senate.

      I love how the poll numbers wold improve when the detail was released. Now that the numbers are still falling, the polls will recover once the tax actually comes into effect… you Labor sycophants will never learn - are you really being honest with yourself?

      Who’s a denier now?

    • Knemon says:

      01:25pm | 19/07/11

      What’s wrong scaper? “As a reader that appreciates well thought out arguments from both sides” LOL…give me a break.

      Why don’t you refute her comments rather than just dribbling on her…oh that’s right, you’re not capable.

      Wipe your chin scaper.

    • Andrew says:

      01:51pm | 19/07/11

      So should we have a new election every time a politician lies, changes their mind or says something which goes against something they said before? We will be having elections every Saturday.

      I guess Australia is in a 24/7 election style full of slogans and posturing at the best of times so we may as well formalise it. I assume you would all be equally outraged had someone leading the liberals was not completley honest or enacted a piece of legislation they didn’t have a mandate for?

      Also i can only assume that you would be outraged that if their was a mandate for a piece of legislation that the liberals went against these wishes.

    • persephone says:

      01:57pm | 19/07/11

      Mouse

      two of the steel companies Abbott visited as examples of industries which would be driven off shore as a result of the carbon price notified the ASX after the announcement of the package that it would have no impact on their profits.

      If you really want to go the mandate argument, then you can argue that both parties took a climate change package to the election. Neither won a majority.

      Therefore neither had a mandate for their package, which means that it’s up to whoever formed government to work with parliament to work out what the package should be.

      But, in reality, the mandate nonsense is just that. It’s something that gets ignored when it suits someone (why didn’t Abbott honour the government’s mandate to introduce an ETS? he also had a mandate to do so) and used when it does.

      We don’t tick off on every single policy of the party we vote for. No party that I know of in the history of our country has delivered on every single promise they made. So we know, when we vote, that not everything the party we voted for has promised will be delivered.

      Governments have delivered major changes in the past without mandates, and been re elected.

      Yep, Mouse, a good list of people who are not reputable scientists. Doesn’t mean they may not be reputable people. They just don’t have a reputation as scientists.

      Simple question: Do you believe that Tony Abbott will deliver his Direct Action policy in full? Do you believe he will honour his commitment to cut emissions by 5% by 2020?

      LeftRightOut

      Two Liberal senators voted for the CPRS, after the Liberals backed away from their commitment.

      And yes, I blame the Greens, too, but the Greens hadn’t negotiated the package, hadn’t promised that they would pass it and hadn’t gone to the previous election promising an ETS.

      The Liberals voted for the package in the lower house and then walked away from it in the Senate.

      And the polling doesn’t bother me. I don’t know how often I have to say that. I’d rather lose and have a carbon pricing mechanism in place than win without one.

      Knemon, thanks!!

    • ausspud says:

      02:46pm | 19/07/11

      pers
      I wonder if the compo has anything to do with them changing their mind.
      And you can thank the libs for that.

    • Mouse says:

      03:01pm | 19/07/11

      Perse, The 2 steel companies you are talking about were offered a $300 million package over 4 years to go along with the carbon tax!
      “Under the Government’s new $1.1 billion of new manufacturing industry assistance funding announced to soften the impact of its carbon tax, steelmakers including Bluescope Steel, will be able to secure a share of the proposed $300 million steel industry assistance plan and the $800 million clean technology fund for manufacturers.’
      “According to the plan, Bluescope Steel will be eligible for 94.5% carbon pollution permits for free and about $45 million a year, to help cover its remaining carbon tax costs making it the biggest beneficiary under the new scheme,”
      .http://www.manmonthly.com.au/news/steel-industry-winners-under-300-million-carbon-t
      If that’s not buying them, I don’t know what is!  As to the tax having no impact on their profits in the future “While it seems the steel industry has little to say about any potential damaging impact the tax could have in the immediate future, the sector is cautious that the gradual rise in carbon price could increase pressure on business and consumers to adapt to a carbon pricing world”  Not exactly jumping with joy now are they?

      You can’t argue about the carbon tax mandate so you try the “well TA said it too”  tactic. Sorry, you lose that one.

      My “not reputable scientists” list and their credentials - 
      Garth Paltridge - Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
      Tim Patterson, Pubs paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:
      Ian Plimer,Pubs Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
      Nicola Scafetta, Pubs research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data.
      Nir Shaviv, Pubs astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
      All are published scientists. Pretty reputable I would think Perse!

      Simple answer - Yes!

    • Tom Jones says:

      03:12pm | 19/07/11

      I also agree. For the people who have researched this and still oppose it, I suggest talking to as many of your friends, neighbours, join a stop carbon tax facebook page. Keep up the fight. 1 common thing I have been told from people I speak to is this. “They’re taking it one hand and give it back with the other”, “And its only 20c”. Once U explain “Yes the compensation is apparent, today, BUT the expense side is exponential”. They start to think about it. And it’s NOT 20cents anymore. And my favourite “ Do U trust this Govt with your families future”  Because that’s what we are talking about. If the Govt is wrong on the increases in the cost of everything are U willing to sacrifice spending on other area’s in your life, just to provide the essentials.  At that point , most people will say NO.  This isn’t a flight for the future climate, this is a fight for our standard of living.  I for 1 WILL NOT sacrifice my family financial future to ANY Govt, especially a Socialist Labor/Green Govt.

    • Against the Man says:

      04:09pm | 19/07/11

      Actually the government should go to an election when the polls are this low, because the longer they wait the greater their punishment will be. The NSW State election is an example, the people were ready to punish them at least 18 moths before the election, when the State ALP drones waited till the last minute to have an election the rage had built up to monumental levels and thus the massive ALP blood-bath. Wait if you want but it only makes it worse smile nothing can save Gilltard and her government now or in 2 years, the question is how much of an annihilation do you want?

      Keep up the rage and pressure!

    • Damocles says:

      04:16pm | 19/07/11

      Hey TChang, Chong, or whatever you call yourself! I’m a true patriot and proud of it! What about you? Yeah, I thought so! Juliar reckons she’s a true Australian and she’s definitely a scoundrel…..that’s SCOUNDREL not SCANDREL! For you to mock me because I love my country tells volumes about YOU! True Labor supporter, more about what’s in it FOR YOU, the country BE DAMNED! Well, we’ll see you lot sent into oblivion in 2 years, because Juliar and Brown won’t go to the people, they KNOW they would LOSE!!

    • n_dude says:

      05:29pm | 19/07/11

      If a carbon tax is so bad, then why have the independents voted for it? GIven the polling you would have thought they would have run a mile - particularly Oakeshott and Windsor. I mean they could walk away and it is not like Labor would call an election…

    • Against the Man says:

      06:46pm | 19/07/11

      n-dude, here is my theory - the Independents betrayed their electorates and so they will never have a political future once this government ends. They have become pariahs of the worst kind. So they are milking it for all it is worth selling out their values and their voters for the big $$ while they can!

      I guessing from the rumours I hear about how Rob is treated when he walks down the street he and family will likely move overseas to escape the legacy of shame.

    • persephone says:

      07:23pm | 19/07/11

      Wow, Mouse - and only one seems to have anything to do with climate science….and his findings haven’t been able to be reproduced by anyone else.

      Any actual scientists who know anything about the climate?

      Thanks for acknowledging I was right about the steel companies!

    • Mouse says:

      08:09pm | 19/07/11

      Persephone, you really do not live in this world do you?  So Dr Evans was reputable when he worked for the Dept of Climate Change and now he says that he disagrees with them he is not? One of the scientists I listed worked for CSRIO, same place you base most of your expert opinion from. So which of them aren’t qualfied to give an educated opinion on climate? The astrophysist? The physics research scientist? How about the paleoclimatologist? You said that none of them are reputable scientists, I think they would be highly offended by your arrogance.  Ahhhh, they are not economists, is that their failing?
      . Right about the steel companies? What, they have been bought? Or that they are very wary about what happens when the 4 years is up? LOL

    • Andy1 says:

      06:06am | 19/07/11

      What I find amazing is there is nothing written about Tony Abbott that gives him any credit what so ever for anything. He is pulled to pieces and treated like a joke by journo’s and media everywhere.
      Stop for a minute and think about it. When was the last time if ever you have read an article praising Abbott or giving him any credit?
      The only time we see anything positive about Abbott is his poling numbers with the electorate, nothing in the media.
      Yet as bad as Gillard and her Government are, we keep reading it’s a tough sell, she will get support when it’s legislated, she has steely determination, she is a good negotiator she’s treated unfairly by the media?.Her problems are caused by the negative, mr no, negative wrecker, blocker, phony Tony, one trick pony who has no policies.
      Abbott has been attacked by the media from day one. They predicted he would disintegrate at a rate of notes.
      Gillards had a dream run by the media in comparison. The polls show just how bad Gillard and her Government really are considering the constant rubbish written about Abbbott.
      Abbott deserves credit when credit is due.

    • Steve says:

      07:48am | 19/07/11

      Just what do you think Tony deserves credit for?
      I’ll give hime credit for
      1) changing his polocy evry time the wind changes
      2) lying about his support for action on climate change
      3) proposing great big new taxes to support subsidies for polluters
      4) stabbing Malcolm Turnbull in the back
      5) holding retailers to ransom so that he can garner support for his opposition of the carbon tax

      What else do you think he needs credit for????

    • Kevin says:

      08:03am | 19/07/11

      When was the last time Abbott did anything praiseworthy or deserving of credit?

    • Engo says:

      08:41am | 19/07/11

      Andy1 - To be fair, his approach has been to attack the government. Successful, sure. Can you name an example of something you think should have been praise worthy but wasn’t widely reported? I’m genuinely interested.

      Steve -
      1) Hyperbole (or is that hyperbowl?)
      2) Changed his mind, he says. Just like Julia, as she claims. If you claim Tony lies about his support, then people can claim Julia lied about the carbon tax.
      3) Proposing great big new taxes on industry, subsidising polluters (steel amongst others and excluding petrol). Somehow claiming 100% of costs won’t be passed on, basing modelling (including compensation) on $20/t and announcing $23/t.
      4) LOL. Remember Rudd? He was an elected PM. Turnbull was an opposition leader doing not so well in the polls.
      5) How exactly is he holding them to ransom? He is stating what he believes would be the impact of a carbon tax (which will only get bigger and more expensive. How else will you reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 when the scheme as it stands only covers 60% of emissions?)

      He gets credit for doing a fantastic job of highlighting the faults of this government. He is a bit light on policy, but why change his approach when it is clearly doing so well?

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:34am | 19/07/11

      Abbott has surprised me. I didn’t think he had it him, but as we can see he will bring down this nasty socialist pack of incompetents, liars, backstabbers and prosperity haters.

      Socialism is evil, it is an abhorrent refusal to accept the reality of material inequality that is a natural outcome of freedom. Peak government is not far off now, when the baby boomers want their promised entitlements and all socialist governments have spent all of other people’s cash, peak government will play out full force.

    • Steve says:

      09:37am | 19/07/11

      Engo

      Well Done, you make my point well.

      Abbott has done nothing praiseworthy and all you have done is stoop to his childish level.

      By the way, you are not keeping up with the news of the Retail Traders accusing Abbott of holding them to ransom.

      You need to read more than the Murdoch Press if you want to keep abreast of events.

    • persephone says:

      10:25am | 19/07/11

      Sony

      so why do you want that socialist Abbott elected?

      He’s talking about using the governnment to subsidise companies to cut emissions.

      He’s talkiing about putting a levy on high earning companies to fund government programs.

      He’s talking about using bureaucrats to ‘pick winners’ - expanding the public service.

      He’s talking about introducing anti dumping laws - so interference in the free market.

      He’s effectively telling people that market mechanisms don’t work, that experts can’t be trusted, and proposing government intervention to solve problems.

      All very socialist.

    • Martin says:

      10:36am | 19/07/11

      Labor clowns continue to underestimate Abbott at their peril. He is effective, on message and a dogged competitor. He is a very good parliamentary performer as well, and has the ability to connect with the ordinary person, a skill that Gillard does not have and never will. At 26% you would think the Labor despots on here would wake up realise that Labor has been outmanouvered, however they are in denial as are their parliamentary representatives.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:49am | 19/07/11

      Pull your head out guys, and read me back the latest opinion polls. Read them slowly, and then compare them to when Abbott took the Liberal leadership.

      Now Minus one number from the other and you get a fair idea of what Tony deserves credit for. Remember he dumped an ETS when everyone in government and the media thought it would be political suicide.

      Ah whats the point, you people wouldn’t know success if it bit you on the arse. You are so blinded by your hatred that you can not see the facts. No-one is suggesting Abbott is perfect, but Labor are at record lows, I repeat RECORD, if you give no credit to Abbott, then you support the worse government in history. A big win for you either way.

    • RyaN says:

      11:41am | 19/07/11

      @Andy1: look over there a squirrel !!! Abbott, Abbott, Abbott .. just look over there are that squirrel so you don’t remember that Gillard LIED to you.
      “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”!

    • RyaN says:

      11:49am | 19/07/11

      Abbotts success is measurable by the level of pathetic attempted denigration of the man while your own leader is being annihilated by him.

      Abbott is taking Labor scalps and Gillards is definitely next. The man is the terminator and a legend for standing up for the Australian people when no one else would.

    • Reggie says:

      11:52am | 19/07/11

      FFS this raving lunatic Sony B Goode is only regurgitating the same rubbish day after day. Seek treatment your Nazi bastard ffs.

      “Peak government is not far off now, when the baby boomers want their promised entitlements and all socialist governments have spent all of other people’s cash, peak government will play out full force.”

    • cc says:

      12:16pm | 19/07/11

      @Sony B Goode,  Agree with your comment.
      But you’re pretending re surprise at Abbott?  -  ‘course you are

    • Engo says:

      12:21pm | 19/07/11

      Ok Steve, I had hoped to keep it at a slightly more mature level, but straight off the bat you have attacked me and called me childish.

      If you had read the first part of my statement, yes I had said that I couldn’t remember anything that Abbot had done other than (very effectively) attack the government that had been widely reported. Again at the end of my post I said he was light on policy. Hardly a glowing endorsement or statement of support.

      Can you actually address any of the points I made (quite reasonably, I feel), without assuming I am a rusted on Liberal or Labor supporter and attacking me?

      I have not read where he held them to ransom, and I do not spend all my time reading news so please provide a link and I will read it. Instead you have made a broad assumption that all I read is the Murdoch press (whatever that may imply).

      Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the political debate who instead of actually answering questions or making factual points, simply just attack anyone or anything who oppose or even appear to oppose them. It doesn’t endear anyone in the middle ground (in which I include myself. Voted Labor twice Liberal once federally) to either side of the debate. All it does is reinforce the perception that to really, really, support a particular political party you need to be a brain dead idiot who can’t think rationally, exaggerates beyond reason and attacks without provocation. And Steve, I think you may just be a prime candidate.

    • Engo says:

      12:24pm | 19/07/11

      Annnnd Reggie invokes Godwins law!

    • Reggie says:

      04:01pm | 19/07/11

      No he doesn’t my blind Engo. If you have read the previous correspondence between this creep and me you will know what I mean.

      By the way you display your ignorance of the real meaning of Godwin’s rule by your inane comment. Sony ? is a disciple of Gobbels which is why he keeps repeating his filth. Do try to keep up Engo.

    • Engo says:

      04:27pm | 19/07/11

      Reggie - Apologies if I’ve offended you, just trying to make a humorous observation. I haven’t seen prior exchanges, I don’t read all the hundreds of comments on this site a week. But was this not a case of Godwins law?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

      “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%).”

    • Reggie says:

      05:25pm | 19/07/11

      Engo, as I’ve pointed out so frequently, this so call law or rule, was intended to apply to inappropriate comparisons.

      It’s general use has since been misapplied such as to curtail ANY discussion what-ever about WWII, Nazis or Nazism.

      Reference to WWII is hardly surprising given the magnitude of the conflagration and so the ultimate effect of the rule has been to terminate any comparisons, no matter how valid they are. In fact it now manages to help the Nazi Party by casting uncertainty in the minds of its critics.

      Now since a word or rule, is ultimately defined by its usage, Mr Godwin has done the world a disservice no matter how well intentioned his initial motives.  The fact is that in previous correspondence, Sony ?? defined himself as an out and out supporter of the right-wing Nazi faction.

      Am I allowed to point out that Churchill was also associated with WWII or does Godwin’s Rule preclude that also?

    • n_dude says:

      05:34pm | 19/07/11

      When has Abbott said or done anything that was positive or non-destructive? Being negative is easy and puts doubts into people’s minds (just look at how successful the ACM were in the republican debate) about any sort of change or reform. That is why Abbott has been so successful. I would like to see a positive policy statement from him in regards to climate change which the Libs do believe in, don’t they?

    • Trojan says:

      01:14am | 20/07/11

      @Andy1 ... ummmm… every single news limited front page backs Tony Abbott.

      All he has achieved is to scare the lot of us.

    • Bob says:

      06:30am | 19/07/11

      Fair enough but a little historical pedantry: the soviet union won WWII. The uk just “hung in there” until rescued by the USSR and the USA.

    • Minks says:

      08:13am | 19/07/11

      Not that I think this analogises our current situation ... but I’m glad someone pointed this out early in the comments section.

    • Reggie says:

      09:44am | 19/07/11

      I hate to extend the analogy but I don’t recall that either the Australian or the British people voted to go to war. To put it more succinctly, the governments decided without reference to the electorate to commit whole nations to kill others and to be killed.

      In that respect this is indeed a similarity.

      Let’s also pause to remember that Churchill BANNED our Robert Gordon Menzies from visiting Britain once he had been exposed to the fool’s gigantic ego.  Then we sacked him.

    • Martin says:

      12:24pm | 19/07/11

      Reggie “We sacked him” Halfwit. Sir Robert Menzies was the longest serving Prime Minister in our history. He was Prime Minister twice, once from 1939 to1941 and then again from 1949 - 1966 so they must of thought he was OK to give him such a long go the second time LMAO.  BTW, Reggie Labor dill, in 1941 in minority government he was brought down by independants crossing the floor in parialment, not by us at all. A kind of forboding there for your present Labor PM Hey?

    • Reggie says:

      04:13pm | 19/07/11

      A bit SLOW aren’t you Martin. He was sacked in 1941 because the electorate had no confidence in his anglophile priorities.

      His resurrection in 1949, after 8 years of working on a plan for duping the electorate, included posing as a liberal and creating instability that saw the Labor Party split. He actually achieved power by destabilizing the country, what a c**t, as Churchill so astutely perceived.  A mongrel who would sell out his country for power. 

      Careful of the friends you choose Martin.

    • Martin says:

      11:49am | 21/07/11

      @Reggie. Bullshit. “the electorate” had nothing to do with it, numbskull. Was there an election in 1941? No, of course there wasn’t. Some MP’s crossed the floor. As for your other rants, just proves that he was the consumate politician. He in fact was NEVER sacked by the electorate. Check your facts, your typical Labor hate mentality stops you from seeing sense.

    • Disraeli says:

      01:54pm | 21/07/11

      “Crossed the floor”? Nonsense.

      The numbers in the House were finely balanced, but his problem in 1941 was ultimately and quite certainly otherwise.

      Lost the confidence of his UAP/CP Cabinet, in actual fact, and resigned.

      Authoritative Menzies sources abound. Easily confirmed.

    • Reggie says:

      05:37pm | 21/07/11

      So you’re flying by the seat of your panicky pants eh Martin? Rant is obviously more your thing as the old fart got the message from various sources that he was not wanted, and resigned.

      If Menzies resigned you can BET it was to avoid being sacked.

      I think we can safely presume that all the members of his party were elected and so represented the people. Split hairs as much as you like, Marty mate but in the end it was his obnoxious image that cost him his job.

      Anyhow my point was that more serious matters than the carbon tax were not taken to the electorate directly. 

      One more jibe ... it was Menzies swanning around in Britain panting to be included in the war-time cabinet that got him in the shit with the Australian voters and with his party. Note also that his attempts were roundly rejected. Does that tell you something perhaps?  He had shown quite clearly that his concerns were for Britain and NOT for the people of Australia. 

      Not forgetting either his concerns for GB to the exclusion of OZ remained right through his time as Australian PM after 1949.  Diddems Marty.

    • Reggie says:

      08:42am | 22/07/11

      Cool it Mr Disraeli, this is a right-wing conservative site and if there’s one thing I have learned from the main body, it’s that abuse is the tool used upon anyone who ventures in to offer an alternative view.  My reply of 6285 words was rejected for being beyond the limit of 6000. So I am forced to an abbreviated reply.

      Whoever wrote the Menzies biography bent over backwards to clean up his image but could not quite succeed. With the missing reference to Churchill’s banning him from visiting Britain for the second time,
      being prominent by its absence.  Well I mean the Irish escapade eh?

      Let this one simple fact be hung around his neck to his perpetual shame.

      “But Menzies was unable to achieve an increased commitment from Britain for Singapore’s defence. With the blitz still in progress and the threat of German invasion not yet passed, Churchill promised only to keep Australia’s concerns in mind. “

      A forceful, decisive and insightful Prime Minister would then have been forced to suggest that he had no alternative but to withdraw troops from the inadequately defended Singapore to the defense of New Guinea.

      Nor is Menzies reaction recorded when the statement was made that Australia had now been forced to turn away from Britain and to seek assistance from the United States.  The prisoners in Changi and on the Burma Railway languished because of Menzies indecision when something more dynamic was required.

      Let’s not even mention his pig-headed rejection of an alliance with the CP and others intended to properly address the war-time situation.

      My initial point stands, Menzies was a centralist of the highest order and worked purely in his own interests. A most unsuitable Prime Minister of Australia for his indecision in all except one thing, that of putting England first.

    • Disraeli says:

      10:10am | 22/07/11

      The Punch limit is 5,000 characters, unless its recently been raised.

      As for your comments about The Punch style and insult as a tool, unimpressed, unconvinced and uninterested.

      It isn’t hard to engage successfully in debate here,  and to make sound points from sound sources, without empty insult or innuendo. 

      Likewise your history remarks.  Your source? Who knows. I’ll take a National Archives summary over an unsourced lecture from an anonymous poster any day.

      From late 1940 until well into 1942, the strategic difficulties faced by Britain and the Commonwealth, and Australia in particular, were profound and extended well beyond land war. Difficult and sometimes poor choices were made in all theatres by all parties - yet the end result was that today we and the British still speak English, not German nor Japanese.

      I’m profoundly uninterested in further pursuing WW2 history with you. Why?

      Because the basic thrust *here* was the Aust PM, Parliament, and 1940 and 1941 elections, in relation to legitmate elected gov’t.

      These have some potential bearing on the current Parliament, Government and confected election hysteria in Australia today.

      In several posts in this thread, Martin has tried to manufacture a precedent of some sort , by trying to misrepresent the fall of Menzies from PMs office as the result of “crossing the floor”, ie a vote of confidence lost on the floor of the House. It wasn’t so.

      Menzies lost the confidence of his coalition Cabinet and correctly resigned.  I can think off-hand of one similar case, John Gorton, profoundly irrelevant to the current legitimate minority/workable majority gov’t we have today. 

      Martin has been trying to pull a swifty. Here and elsewhere on The Punch, he’s been industriously trying to peddle misleading information on the nature of a legitimate minority/workable majority gov’t.

      Rather more important to address that, in my view.

    • Reggie says:

      02:46pm | 22/07/11

      Not wishing to be offensive Mr Disraeli but your expression of disinterest is rather absurd when held against your continual revisiting of this thread.

      Your concern with Martin’s specious attempts at diversion do not seen to have been addressed by you anywhere else but here.  So you may wish to revisit my first input to refresh your memory on the point I was making, rather than obliquely supporting Martin in his difficulty.  smile

    • Martin says:

      04:25pm | 22/07/11

      Reggie,  I see you’ve taken a dislike to Disraeli waffling, that’s understandable. Reggie could I just ask you again. You stated “We sacked him ” . When did “We sack him? We is we the people, just wondering when we did that?

      Disraeli, your last gush of hot air featured this “Parliament and 1940 and 1941 elections, in relation to legitimate gov’t”. Was there an election in 1941 Disraeli? If so provide the details here.  You see your attempt at highbrow argument does you no favours. Long winded rants quoting cupious “facts” do you no good. , especially when you get things wrong.  Next time keep it simple that might help.

    • Disraeli says:

      04:47pm | 22/07/11

      Oh dear. One of those.

      Doesn’t trouble to grasp/check meaning of own posts, other’s posts, or available source material. You two are as bad as each other.

      “continual revisiting?” Stop putting points to me, then.

      Disinterested -  in your WW2 revisionism.
      Disinterested - in vitriol. From anyone.

      “Support” Martin? Incorrect.
      Martin’s slack electoral/parl’t posts “not addressed before”? Incorrect.
      Rebuttals aplenty: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/carbon-tax-the-ladys-not-for-turning/#comments

      “Menzies sacked”?
      Nup.  Menzies resigned. The UAP/CP Govt did not.
      It remained in minority Gov’t under Artie Fadden as PM for a time.

      Then:
      “On 3 October 1941, the Fadden coalition government fell. It was defeated in a vote in the House of Representatives when the two Independent members, Arthur Coles and Alex Wilson, voted with the Opposition to reject Fadden’s budget. Fadden advised the Governor-General Lord Gowrie that Labor leader John Curtin should be commissioned as Prime Minister and Curtin was sworn in on 7 October 1941.”
      http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/fadden/in-office.aspx

      So, Fadden not sacked either. Resigned.

      War-time, and not much precedent there in either event either, to current Palriamentary/Govt circumstances.

      Enough. Filed under NFA.

    • Disraeli says:

      05:17pm | 22/07/11

      Gah. Martin’s got something right. For once.

      No 1941 election. My error. 1941 events, correctly.

      Still no relevant precedents to be seen.

      Buh-byee.

    • Reggie says:

      10:20pm | 22/07/11

      Goodness me I dislike anyone waffling, which is why I try and limit my inputs to bite size. That awful input with 6000+ characters was totally against my principles. Thank God it never got through.

      In reply to your query Martin, during the war there were lots of “them and us.” I’m sure you can work out what I mean and I have no intention of belittling your intelligence by explaining it to you. I do these things and sometimes in backfires when I discover I’m talking to a dumb-shit.

      As one who had access to the pulse of the nation at the time, I can assure you that Menzies had shat in his nest. No matter who dispensed with his services ... it was WE who gave him the impression that he was not wanted. You may like to compare the simile of Kevin’s back-stabling. Much the same thing.

      Actually Martin I find condescension more offensive than verbosity and both of you have indulged in that. In fact, I’m doing it now. For your information I was guilty of voting for RGM for a considerable period.

      Sleep tight.

    • Martin says:

      12:27pm | 23/07/11

      Point taken Reggie re Menzies spending too much time in the UK, hence his difficulties upon arriving home. Decent of you to admit you voted for him for a period ,  Cheers.

    • Reggie says:

      01:59pm | 23/07/11

      In a progressive country change is constant; ...change… is inevitable.
       

      Thank you Ben.

    • TimB says:

      06:31am | 19/07/11

      “But quotes don’t win or lose a war and we are all in for a continuing verbal assault until the matter is eventually resolved by an election.”

      Jeeze wouldn’t that be nice?

      Unfortunately there are idiots out there out there who seem to think that an election is “undemocratic”. You know, people who ignore the fact that Julia took the opposite policy to the election and that 70%+ of the population are against the tax.

      But apparently lying to the electorate and ignoring the wll of the people is ok in their version of democracy. Go figure.

    • JohnB says:

      07:02am | 19/07/11

      The worst that will come from this betrayal to the electorate is that Labor will be annihilated and Liberal will win a massive majority and punish us in all sorts of ways. We need to force an election now to maintain a skeleton opposition. How has the Labor party become so dumb after watching what’s happened to their state counterparts in NSW?

    • Steve says:

      07:52am | 19/07/11

      I think you’re overlooking the fact that there was a hung parliament.
      Fortunately or unfortunately, enough people voted independent and Green to ensure Julia’s “promise” was nullified.
      The reason Tony isn’t in power is because he couldn’tr be trusted by the independents.
      And I think his attitude since then has reinforced their position.
      Why would anyone consider him PM material?

    • Steve says:

      08:35am | 19/07/11

      TimB, seriously quoting the Telegraph?
      Don’t make me laugh. Go and read something truthful.

    • TimB says:

      09:23am | 19/07/11

      I’m (indirectly) quoting Gillard, idiot.

      “Now Gillard says she could have taken government without the Greens, by crafting a different deal with independents, including conservatives Tony Crook and Bob Katter.

      “In the 17 days that were, I obviously had discussions with a lot of people - with the Greens, with (Rob) Oakeshott, (Tony) Windsor, (Bob) Katter, even some discussions with (WA National) Tony Crook, I thought it was always going to be possible for us to structure arrangements so that we would get support in this parliament,” she says.”

      Of course if you really think the Telegraph has misquoted Gillard, I’m sure she’ll be on the phone to get a correction. Any day now…soon….

      ....hmm.

      Honestly, if the only “defence” you have for your poor arguments is to launch a weak attack against the source of mine, you’re in trouble.

    • Steve says:

      09:50am | 19/07/11

      Poor TimB.
      I obviously hit a raw nerve.
      And again I say, read something thruthful.
      You are quoting from an opinion piece.  This is Claire’s portrayal of a position she wants to sell.
      Moreover, she actually acknowledges that Julia had to do a deal.
      You are not indirectly quoting Gillard, you are quoting Claire Harvey.
      But I have to admire the schoolyard bully tactic of calling me an idiot.

      My equally childish response should be nah nah, nah nah nah.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:54am | 19/07/11

      @ TimB “Heres a fairly apt quote for the punch

      “Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to thier level and beat you with experience”

      @ Steve, you hung parliament argument is bullshit, no one has to create a minority government, we can always have a re-election until a majority is found. It should of been done.

      And then deciding on a minority government, nothing made the prime minister capitulate to the whims of the independants and the greens.

      If you have time, let me know one positive policy thats been implemented from Gillard Labor, just one will do, because I fail to see how any sane, rational person could support this party.

    • TimB says:

      10:59am | 19/07/11

      Oh Stevie, you’ve already beaten everyone into the childish stakes with your silly “If it comes from the Telegraph it must be LIESSSSSSS” attitude.

      Julia said it. It’s right there in black and white. I really don’t care if you choose to believe it or not.

      Julia chose to have a carbon tax. She chose to broke her word. She lied.That’s a fact. Deal.

    • bobw says:

      12:20pm | 19/07/11

      The package now on the table is hardly the substantive “opposite” of what Gillard took to the election, ie a commitment to carbon pricing.

    • TimB says:

      12:51pm | 19/07/11

      Bobw, Another ALP apologist who conveniently leaves out facts.

      Julia’s “commitment to carbon priocing” policy, was a promise to reach a consensus on the issue first & then revisit the issue in 2012-13, ready for a policy to be taken to the next election. And of course “No Carbon tax”

      What do we have? No consensus, a policy being brought in without giving the electorate a chance to vote on it, and just to top it off, it’s in a tax form.

      If you think this in any way resembles what Gillard promised prior to the election then your view of reality is severely warped.

    • bobw says:

      01:45pm | 19/07/11

      TimB:  “Bobw, Another ALP apologist who conveniently leaves out facts ... your view of reality is severely warped.”

      Yes, thanks for this, well done.

      There’s a reason I used the word “substantive”.  You are merging means and mechanisms into the substance of Gillard’s platform, which always revolved around moving towards a carbon price.  Philosophically, the package now on the table is fundamentally consistent with that.  I’m not going to claim that the climate change policy the ALP took to the election was a paragon of clarity - because it wasn’t - but the general thrust was plain enough.

      It’s amusing that you bring up “no carbon tax”, because as I’m sure you know, one of the “no carbon tax” quotes, which has since launched so many spurious arguments, was coupled with the following rider:  “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism [during this Parliamentary term]”.

      The current tax-to-ETS package is strikingly similar to Rudd’s CPRS.

      So, “different”?  Sure.  “Opposite”, total backflip?  I think not.

      By the way, if you insist on perpetuating the “she lied” catchcry, could you kindly couple it to a credible definition of “lie”?

    • ausspud says:

      03:02pm | 19/07/11

      Steve
      You do realise that it wont be introduced till july 2012, so why cant she wait 1yr and take it to the 2013 election.
      Shes using the hung parliament as a bullshit excuse,Labor were always going to bring in the air-tax.

    • Dash says:

      06:56am | 19/07/11

      I find the ALP squealing at the media unbelievable! Naming the Telegraph in Sydney just because they reflect the views of 75 percent of the electorate, is shameful. What’s worse, is the Fairfax press blindly supporting the Gillard government despite public opinion being firmly against the tax and the government! Perhaps we need Browns inquiry to see what’s driving Fairfax?

      If the media can’t write crap, that means they can’t write about anything the ALP does!

      This is bad policy at a bad time! The government has its fingers in its ears. Dodgy deals, dodgy policy, dodgy government. They are a shameful rabble! Election now!

    • amcoz says:

      07:58am | 19/07/11

      “The government has its fingers in its ears” but if it only took its left thumb out of its arse it would know how smelly the carbon tax really is.

    • Steve says:

      07:58am | 19/07/11

      What a load of crap!
      The Telegraph!
      You seriously think this is an honourable source of opinion?
      You haven’t been reading about the Murdoch press?
      You don’t realise that half the Fairfax opinion writers are ex liberal MPs or staffers?
      Have you switched off half your brain?

    • Tom says:

      09:58am | 19/07/11

      Steve, the ABC is not honorable. (O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc etc). Nor is Fairfax. So stop your whining.

      BTW: Comments like “Have you switched off half your brain?” might work well at the Newtown caucus meeting. They ain’t making it outside your cosy mob-driven Labor glee club.

    • Steve says:

      10:19am | 19/07/11

      Tom
      You somehow link criticism of one eyed media to “Labor glee club”.
      I am a Lib voter who is just sick of the Murdoch press stifling debate on the bigger issues (Carbon Tax is just one of them)
      What I really miss is jornalism rather than editorialism.  I want the media to tell us the facts, not the opinion their shareholders want them to “sell”.
      I also think it is interesting that both parties when in government criticise the ABC.

      i would take that as a compliment if I was them.

    • Tom says:

      11:00am | 19/07/11

      Steve (O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc etc). The evidence is overwhelming. Any criticism by Labor of the ABC is a Hawker Britton “both sides do it” smokescreen to stymie legitimate examination.

    • bobw says:

      12:13pm | 19/07/11

      That’s right, Tom.  If in doubt, allege a “Hawker Britton” conspiracy.  Brilliant.

    • Tom says:

      01:03pm | 19/07/11

      bobw, ... “If in doubt”, ... who said I have any doubt? (O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc etc).

      Bruce Hawker’s 26% hardly rates as a conspiracy any more when we have the DT “fooling” 74% of Australia. Now there’s a conspiracy.

    • bobw says:

      01:55pm | 19/07/11

      @Tom:  Why do you keep writing “(O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc etc)” as though it proves something?

      Can I take it that you are the same “Tom” whose best effort at responding to another poster the other day consisted of the following?

      “‘Bolt, Jones ...’ can you please elaborate? Who is this ‘Bolt, Jones’? Is he a friend of yours? Can I meet him some time?’

      If you are, hilarious.

    • Tom says:

      02:25pm | 19/07/11

      bobw, If you agree to apprise me about the political memberships of your friend “Bolt, Jones’ , I will gladly apprise you of the affiliations of O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew. Otherwise no response necessary, eh?

      BTW: my sincere gratitude for your attentiveness and retentiveness to my postings and praise be that, every now and then, they have blessed your day with some unbridled mirth.

    • bobw says:

      03:02pm | 19/07/11

      @Tom:  As you may recall, I was a party to the relevant thread, and found the quoted post rather laughable; its irrelevancy seemed to suggest that even you were aware that your original assertion had become untenable.  It seems that history is repeating itself.

      I’m afraid that chanting “(O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc)” does not amount to “overwhelming” evidence of institutional bias.

    • Tom says:

      04:15pm | 19/07/11

      @bobw, and your friends’ chanting of Bolt, Jones amounts to something? OMG

    • bobw says:

      04:35pm | 19/07/11

      @Tom:  Way to miss the point.

      Anyway, do tell - how does “(O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc)” amount to “overwhelming” evidence of institutional bias?

    • Tom says:

      04:48pm | 19/07/11

      bobw, you avoided my questions. “If you agree to apprise me about the political memberships of your friend “Bolt, Jones’ , I will gladly apprise you of the affiliations of O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew. Otherwise no response necessary, eh?”

      Play by your own rules or troll somewhere else.

    • bobw says:

      06:06pm | 19/07/11

      @Tom:  Yet more sterile distractions.  It must have escaped your notice that I’m not actually very interested in the party preferences of Bolt or Jones, which are hardly relevant to the issue of institutional bias at the ABC.  I simply mentioned your earlier comment because:  (a) it seemed to reflect a view, dubious and now apparently abandoned, that it’s impossible to glean any meaning from a mere listing of names; and more importantly (2) because it seemed symptomatic of a tendency to veer off into irrelevancy when asked to substantiate questionable assertions.  You are certainly doing a good job of firming up my suspicions on the second count.

      You seem to be alleging that the ABC is “not honorable” because of institutional bias.  Where is the evidence of this?  What does “(O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc etc)” prove?

      Simple questions.  A straight answer would be great.  Otherwise, just fugeddaboudit.

    • Tom says:

      10:35am | 20/07/11

      @bobw, Thanks for your invitation to show up what a pedantic fellow you are.
      “What does “(O’Brien, Cassidy, McKew etc etc etc)” prove? ... To me, institutional bias towards Labor. To you? Who cares?
      “Where is the evidence of this?” Stick around and read, mate.

      Cassidy
      Joining the ABC Network, he initially covered state politics. He moved to Canberra to become the ABC’s federal political correspondent for radio and television in 1979.
      In 1986, Cassidy was approached by the then prime minister, Bob Hawke, to become his personal press secretary. He remained in the job—which he has described as “the most rewarding and interesting period of my life”—until Paul Keating took over the leadership in 1991 following a challenge.
      McKew
      Maxine Margaret McKew is a former Australian politician and journalist; she was the Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in the Rudd Ministry and the First Gillard Ministry. Between 2007 and 2010, she was the member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Bennelong, New South Wales. Until 2007, the seat was held by the then Prime Minister John Howard, who had been the member for 33 years. She was only the second person to unseat a sitting Australian prime minister in their own electorate.[2] At the 2010 Federal election she lost her seat to the Liberal Party candidate, John Alexander.
      Before entering politics, McKew was an award-winning broadcast journalist. She hosted a number of programmes on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television and radio, most recently Lateline and The 7.30 Report.
      McKew was reported to have been a possible Labor candidate for the safe federal seat of Fowler at both the 2001 and 2004 elections.[16] In 2004, it was the Labor leader Mark Latham who attempted to lure McKew with preselection to the Western Sydney seat. Latham recorded in his diary that his efforts failed because the broadcaster would not move from her home in Mosman to Labor’s outer-suburban heartland, an area which he represented as the Member for Werriwa,[17] while McKew told ABC Radio that a big factor in her 2003 decision was that she regarded the party as being without direction at the time.[18] McKew had also been approached by John Hewson in the past to join the Liberal Party.
      After resigning from the ABC in December 2006, McKew joined the Australian Labor Party in January 2007 as a special adviser on strategy to Labor leader Kevin Rudd. The Australian reported in early February that McKew was again in contention to gain preselection for the Division of Fowler, a safe Labor seat held by Julia Irwin who had supported Kim Beazley in the December leadership ballot. However the article also stated that a Labor source had suggested that a different seat was possible.
      On 25 February Rudd’s office confirmed that McKew would run against Prime Minister John Howard in the Division of Bennelong at the election,[20] and McKew announced that she and Hogg were selling their Mosman home.[6][21] The seat had once been a Liberal stronghold (it had been in Liberal hands since its creation in 1949), but it had shifted increasingly to Labor in recent years. Howard had held the seat since 1974, but in two out of the three elections he had fought since becoming prime minister, he’d needed to go to preferences to win another term in his own seat.
      O’Brien
      O’Brien started as a news cadet in 1966. He has worked in newspapers, wire service and television news and current affairs, as a general reporter, feature writer, political and foreign correspondent, interviewer and compere, and also served as press secretary to then Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.
      The 7.30 ReportAfter six years as compere and interviewer of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Lateline program, O’Brien moved in 1995 to The 7.30 Report, of which he was editor and compère.

    • bobw says:

      12:54pm | 20/07/11

      @Tom:  Thanks for the cut’n'paste.  I am aware of all of that.  What does it prove about “overwhelming” institutional bias?

    • JohnB says:

      07:07am | 19/07/11

      Get rid of cliche’s in politics. It clouds issues, it sends wrong messages, they are used as a crutch and they make me feel ill. Cliche’s have destroyed sensible debate. I’m sure there was some substance behind Churchill’s cliche’s unlike….“It’s the right thing to do”.... “It’s the right thing to do”....“It’s the right thing to do”....“It’s the right thing to do”.....“It’s the right thing to do”........agggghhhh.

      I say every time I hear one from any politician I vow to tune out.

    • Steve says:

      08:10am | 19/07/11

      I noticed you haven’t tuned out to “Great big new tax”!
      Bit selective aren’t you?

    • JennyF says:

      08:13am | 19/07/11

      More nauseating for me is her use of the word “I”.
      “I THINK it’s the right thing to do’. Wrong.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      08:33am | 19/07/11

      Hey JohnB at least she’s ditched “Moving forward” probably because they are moving backwards at a rapid rate smile

    • TheRealDave says:

      08:11am | 19/07/11

      A bit off topic…..as is my want…that picture of Churchill thats accompanying the article, given that his military career was 5 minutes long….where did he get all the bling and RAF wings from?

    • MeLogic says:

      09:07am | 19/07/11

      read the wiki dave

      Allegiance   British Empire
      Service/branch   British Army
      Years of service   1895–1900, 1902–24
      Rank   Lieutenant-Colonel
      Battles/wars   Anglo-Afghan War
      *Siege of Malakand
      Mahdist War
      *Battle of Omdurman
      Second Boer War
      *Siege of Ladysmith
      First World War
      *Western Front
      Awards   Galó de l’Orde del Mèrit (UK)
      Order of Companions of Honour ribbon
      India Medal BAR
      Queens Sudan Medal BAR
      Queens South Africa Medal 1899-1902 ribbon
      1914 Star BAR
      British War Medal BAR
      Allied Victory Medal BAR
      Territorial Decoration (UK) ribbon

      He was a Sealord and as head of govnernment during a time of war, he can wear the insignia of any of the armed forces.

    • Holly says:

      08:51am | 19/07/11

      So we’re just supposed to say nothing about Abbott’s multiple lies.  Take one example blatantly telling the public and workers that the Queensland coal industry faces collapse when in fact the opposite is the case and the industry is expecting a 40 - 50 % expansion.  So is that not a lie? 

      So why is the media not interested in Tony Abbott’s big fat lies.  How can we have an informed debate when his lies about the carbon price are not even reported and held up to scrutiny.  If Julia Gillard had told the same lies at a public meeting she would have been pilloried in the press.  But what did Tony Abbott ‘s lie get - not even a mention - the ensuing article was about the price of Tim Tams.  And the Tony Abbott says the people are sovereign.  This assumes the people are informed.  If Tony Abbott wants to go around the countryside telling lies at meetings then it is quite appropriate that the government spend money trying to counter them.  If 30% of people polled claim not to know about the details of the government plan then the advertising must be justified. If Tony Abbott stops telling lies and puts up his own policy for comparison ( he has the same abatement targets after all), then people will be able to really make an considered opinion.

      Interesting that in the polls people who claim they don’t like the governments proposal but still considered Labors carbon Price /ETS policy much better than the coalition policy.  Go figure that.

    • JohnB says:

      09:20am | 19/07/11

      At the moment Holly, Abbotts lies don’t threaten everything generations have worked for. When his lies did matter (workchoices) we listened and acted.

      When they lie (and it matters), it is our duty to punish them.

    • MeLogic says:

      09:31am | 19/07/11

      Coal Mines: The Greens want to shut down all coal mines within 50 years.  Fact. The Greens run the Labour party at the moment. Fact.

      The rest of your rant is therefore nonsense. Fact.

      No lies.

    • John Smythe says:

      09:54am | 19/07/11

      I’m wondering just when you will get it Holly.

      Gillard was not leading the polls by a huge amount when she lied. She was hanging on by a thread…and realised what the Australian public did NOT want. So she lied about not offering it to secure a win. Politicians lie, but to lie to secure a victory is far worse as it cheated people of their right to a proper election. Naive of the people? Perhaps so, but this does not counteract the point made.

      To me this bespeaks of power hunger. Since coming into power, she has reflected this time and time again. She is now needing to remind the people that she is “Prime Minister”. That also reflects her understanding of just how unfavourable she is.

    • persephone says:

      10:30am | 19/07/11

      John Smythe

      sorry, I don’t buy that - I know too many traditional ALP supporters who switched their votes BECAUSE Gillard ruled out prompt action on climate change.

      It’s quite possible that, had she said something like “I will take any action possible to make sure that some kind fo carbon pricing is in place before the next election’ her vote would have gone up.

      I’m not aware of any exit polling either way, so it’s impossible to say with certainty whether the statement was a plus or a minus, but, as I said, my own experience suggests she would have got more votes if she had committed more strongly to action.

    • John Smythe says:

      10:56am | 19/07/11

      You don’t need to buy it Pers. There’s a lot of sentiment like that echoed here in these articles. Someone else also pointed out that there was supposed to be no action UNTIL the next election to begin with, so why force it through now? Unless of course you know the majority don’t want it, and you wouldn’t last at the next election. /shrug

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:00am | 19/07/11

      @ Persephone,

      Your thoughts on everyone elses opinion is worthless, you are so far off what the majority thinks its laughable. The only exhibit neccessary is the current polling.

      Anyway your traditional ALP voted for Libs because they had a weaker carbon plan? Or did they vote green and preferenced Labor anyway? What the left needs to understand, is that thier close circle of friends does not represent the diversity of opinion in this country.

    • TimB says:

      11:39am | 19/07/11

      “my own experience suggests she would have got more votes if she had committed more strongly to action. “

      Yes. That’s why her strong commitment to action now has been such a vote winner for the ALP. [/sarc]

      Seriously Perse, checked the polls lately? I honestly cannot fathom how you can live in such denial and still function.

    • Dash says:

      12:24pm | 19/07/11

      John Smythe I agree with you. Both Gillard and Swan deliberately mislead the Australian public on the eve of the last election. Disgraceful behaviour and a big part of why the ALP primary is at 26% and falling.

      The media is reflecting public opinion, but because it shows the ALP up, they’re whinging like little brats! “Why don’t you print our media releases word for word”? If the media took Gillard’s suggestion not to print crap, they wouldn’t be able to write about her or any of the ALPs policies!

      Lets have Bob Brown’s inquiry into the media. Let’s find out why Fairfax and the ABC are ALP lap dogs despite the weight of public opinion!

    • Bob says:

      09:34am | 19/07/11

      I agree with the PM’s quote,  and it seems the vast majority of the voting public do too-  ‘When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?”

      The public have changed our minds - only 26% want Labor, and 33% think the PM is doing a good job. The lowest % EVER.

      Why does everyone think the carbon tax or Mr Abbotts NO NO , or the fact Ms Gillard or Mr Abbot or Mr Howard lied or Keating or Hawke said , is the reality here.

      The Greens want the carbon tax just as much as Labor, why has their vote not fallen through the floor.

      The reality is the dye is cast, people have switched off, they have decided.

      The only thing left for Labor-Greens - Independents to push through the legislation, if they truly believe this will turn things around.

      If it doesn’t they face total oblivion, likewise if they walk away it is all over.

    • Tim says:

      09:46am | 19/07/11

      Maintain the rage!!!
      1 - the majority dont like paying taxes
      2 - the majority dont care about climate change enough to support a tax.
      we all care about famine in africa, but we wouldn’t support a $10/week tax to feed them.

    • No Taxation Without Representation! says:

      09:48am | 19/07/11

      At the heart of this, there is a cancer. That cancer is Julia Gillard’s theft of an election on a lie. If a small business person wins a contract on a lie, they face fines and imprisonment. For some reason, Julia Gillard is not held to the same standard. The ALP are wrong if they think we will forgive or forget. The only way out of this is a new election, because this government is illegitimate.

    • persephone says:

      10:34am | 19/07/11

      And yet people are willing to vote for Tony Abbott, BECAUSE they believe he won’t honour his promises.

      Strange world.

    • Michael says:

      11:19am | 19/07/11

      pers’ a good many people would vote Abbott because he isn’t Julia at the moment, it might not have logic, it’s an emotional reaction the electorate is having to the perception that Julia is a good for nothing liar.

    • Martin says:

      11:40am | 19/07/11

      Propaganda Phone, Strange world alright. Where did you get the idea Abbott won’t honour his promises? They will vote for him because he will repeal this ridiculous tax. That’s why. He is believable, Gillard has no credibity. You Labor crust ons are that addicted to spin and word manipulation that you somehow come up with the notion that he saying something but he doesn’t really mean it? He does mean it. It’s only Labor dills that have a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another. Julia Gillard “There will be No Carbon Tax= complete lies and typical Labor behaviour ala Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, Peoples Assembly on Climate change etc all spin designed to keep the public happy and contain no substance at all.

    • Aussie Battler says:

      03:12pm | 19/07/11

      persephone says:10:34am | 19/07/11
      Strange world.

      Not really.  Unfortunately Ms Gillard and Labor have created this mess all on their own and caused a large number of defections to alternate voting options.  The Independents who support her have also created a void.  A lot of people we know, now fear voting for Independents as they will go against the will of those who elected them for what appears to be minimal persuasion.  Ultimately, Labor/Independents/Greens have forced a lot of undecided (and sometimes dedicated Labor supporters) into the position of only having Tony Abbott to vote for.  They can only blame themselves for this mess. 
      Abbott is just doing what he is meant to do.  He is in “Opposition” after all. And why should he place all his cards upfront now?.  He has time on his side whilst Labor just keep digging the hole deeper each time Ms Gillard or Senator Brown open their mouths.

    • Curious Brett says:

      09:56am | 19/07/11

      A question to the forum trolls:
      There are many comments about “applying pressure” to the government “to force an election”. Is there anything within the constitution that can force an election? As far as I am aware, the circumstances required to force a dobule dissolution dont currently exist, nor are they likely to, given the current balance of power in the House of Reps and the Senate. The polls seem to indicate that the Government dont have the mandate of the people at this point in time. However, they managed to get elected, and have the right to govern for 3 years. They certainly wont call an election now, given they would surely lose. I cant see the GG removing the PM as Kerr did to Whitlam in the 1975 Great Constitutional crisis. So is there a set of cirumstances that would force the election?

    • Bob says:

      10:36am | 19/07/11

      @Curious Brett : all it takes would be one or more Independents to remove support for the Gillard Govt. Gillard would then say to the GG that she is unable to form Govt. Mr Abbott would be asked if he could do so - if the answer was also no - the GG could dissolve parliment and Australia would have an election (Lower House only).

      Alternatively Ms Gillard (on behalf of Labor) could go to the GG and seek an election. Very unlikely.

      President Bob would still have control of the Senate, unless the new Govt finds it unworkable and made representation to the GG for a double dissolution.

      It is extremely unlikely that the GG will be asked by the current opposition based on current issues.

    • persephone says:

      10:42am | 19/07/11

      Curious Brett

      1. Correct about Double Dissolution. This needs a piece of legislation to be rejected twice by the same Senate, and for the government then to ask the GG to dissolve both Houses.

      Given that the new Senate has just been elected, it would be almost impossible to bring about a DD within the next year. To do so would require the government to submit legislation to the Senate which the Senate had already rejected, and then to voluntarily call an election.

      It’s very unlikely a government facing polls like Labor’s at present would commit suicide in this way.

      2. The only circumstances which could force an election at this point (and none of them are likely in the short term):

      a. the death or immediate retirement of an ALP member, forcing a by election. If the by election was lost, this would change the numbers on the floor of the Lower House, which could lead to a vote of no confidence in the government and the dissolution of the HoR.

      b. someone from the ALP or the indies crossing the floor to vote with the Coalition on a vote of no confidence. As this would be certain electoral suicide, unlikely anyone would do it.

    • Martin says:

      12:40pm | 19/07/11

      Could I bring your attention to the 1940 election where Sir Robert Menzies held on through a minority government arrangement. In 1941, the independents that propped up his government crossed the floor and he lost power. So it has happened before and hence it can happen again.  The DD question is now a very interesting one, and one that would be scaring the tripe out of Bob Brown. I f Abbott somehow won government, and this present rage still existed in the electorate, then he
      could force a DD by having the legislation to repeal the carbon tax knocked back twice, as Bob Brown said he would do.  We also have the spectre of Wilkie withdrawing support if they knife Gillard, or they don’t pass poker machine legislation that he is happy with. Oakeshott and Windsor wouldn’t want to talk about it, but they are under siege in their own electorates, maybe the pressure might get to much for one of them.  Labor MP’s would have to be very worried about the polls, maybe, just maybe one of them decides to his/her conscience vote and says no to this tax. Maybe an MP dies and a by election brings about a change to the balance of power? Maybe there’s a scandal and a Labor MP has to resign? Make no mistake, this minority government hangs by a thread, and at 26% primary vote, that thread is straining under the weight.

    • Tom says:

      04:12pm | 20/07/11

      Martin, your last point is interesting. Younger ALP members in the more marginal seats would be very nervous at a young career cut short. However, I don’t think any of them will break ranks as the risks seem too high.

      The waggons are in tight and the indians are circling. The Greens / ALP and assorted traitors to their constituencies will all have heads down and be hoping for the miracle dead cat bounce. (Sorry for all the metaphors).

      The only slim chance scenario I could foresee is Gillard (or a replacement) doing the brinksmanship thing with Brown (stick your tax Bob) thereby salvaging some ALP honour and shortcutting complete destruction under the pretence of “listening to the peepuuul orf Orstraya”. It worked for Baillieu in Victoria?

    • bobw says:

      10:28am | 19/07/11

      Thanks for the Ken O’Dowd press release at the end there.

    • Biggles says:

      11:14am | 19/07/11

      Slightly off topic but saying “They inspired a nation to ultimate victory”  gets my goat.  Get real, the speech was for domestic consumption and victory came with the Americans, not a few glib words while hugging a Brandy case.  Churchill was despised by many for his cruel disregard of soldiers and the lower orders especially the northern English.  During the blitz Londoners were almost revolutionary as Churchill banned ordinary working folk from seeking safety in the underground tube stations.  The British elites PR’d Churchill’s false legend I’m surprised so far on some still fall for it.

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:16pm | 19/07/11

      Wilkie is my rep. He doesn’t answer or even acknowledge my polite emails any-more.

      Here’s the last one he doesn’t want to know about.

      “Dear Mr Andrew Wilkie MP,

      Having heard the few CO2 Tax details released by PM Gillard I remain convinced that this tax is a failure.

      Even if the tax does as PM Gillard claims, with a reduction of CO2 global emissions by some 0.79% the continued export of coal will more than offset this meagre abatement.

      Indeed, some analysts show that a whole years Australian abatement by this expensive CO2 tax will be matched in five (5) days by China’s emissions. And that’s the increase in their emissions over five days, not their total CO2 emissions.

      And I remind you that PM Gillard and Treasurer Swam explicitly ruled out a CO2 tax, apparently in order to be elected. Lies for personal political gain are the lowest form of public service.

      You are reported now as saying you will support them in this. Despite your statement that you “always supported a CO2 tax” I have not found a single instance of you saying this prior to the last election.

      Best Regards

      Joel B1”

    • Glenn says:

      12:48pm | 19/07/11

      @Joel B1 - suggest you write about a tax or ban on gambling and see if he responds.

      @Gwen - But she has not betrayed President Bob or King Howes?

      As for us -  “Let them eat cake”.

    • Steve says:

      01:00pm | 19/07/11

      This isn’t the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning.

      Will the ALP heed Churchill’s advice “When you are going through hell - keep going” ?

    • Nathan says:

      01:06pm | 19/07/11

      Well you dont have to like the man but Tony Abbott is showing that he can be the man and rise to the occasion. Ms Gillard has only just started feeling the pressure with signs of cracks starting to appear and Tony Abbott has been pounded by the ALP for years now with him showing no signs of weakness. If Ms Gillard wants to run the marathon test of her own conviction up till the next election I’m thinking Abbott will come up champion, they dont call him the marathon man for nothing.

    • Mel says:

      01:17pm | 19/07/11

      Quote   “But O’Dowd said yesterday that apparently any reporting which did not support the carbon tax was regarded as “crap” by Ms Gillard even though all major opinion polls continued to show a big majority of Australians were opposed to it.”

      So what Ms Gillard is saying is that pubic opinion is CRAP unless they support her.

      She is starting to sound like President Bob.

    • Ant says:

      01:17pm | 19/07/11

      You mention David Evans, here is a comprehensive debunking of his article that you refer to.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

      97% of climate experts agree that the planet is warming, climate change is real and is caused largely by human CO2 emissions which we can reduce- I fail to see what drives the deniers apart from some sort of need to grandstand to a gullible public .

      Every single denier - from David Evans to Lindzen and Choi to Ian Plimer and “Lord” Monckton have not submitted their articles to peer review, and have been comprehensively debunked if you care to look.

      The PM is brave - its not easy to take on reform this large when you have a public that is baying like crowd at the Colosseum while Tony takes the path of the coward in egging them on.  I wish her strength. She will need it.

    • Ant says:

      01:32pm | 19/07/11

      And there is no evidence David Evans ( electrical engineer - not a prominent or even a rocket scientist as he claims) has ever written a peer reviewed article about climate change nor that he was ever a climate change “believer” - so his so-called change of heart is obviously a sham.
      Oh, and here is another thorough debunking of David Evans :http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

    • Kassandra says:

      04:36pm | 19/07/11

      He holds six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford. He is principally a mathematician but his background is in electrical engineering. He developed the “carbon accounting system” used by our government for the purposes of the Kyoto accords. If you don’t like what the man says fair enough but at least give him a little respect. He deserves at least as much as the government’s chief apologist who is an economist for heaven’s sake.

    • Ant says:

      07:43pm | 19/07/11

      He will get my respect if he publishes a peer reviewed article on climate change that is factual and not fantasy. His work has been thoroughly debunked despite the fact that he does not have the courage to submit to peer review (that’s how science works)

    • Bert says:

      01:43pm | 19/07/11

      These are better quotes for the current circumstances:

      Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.  Sir Winston Churchill

      Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.  Sir Winston Churchill

    • Reggie. says:

      04:20pm | 19/07/11

      Bert; “Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.  Sir Winston Churchill”

      No doubt the organ grinder was Roosevelt and the monkey was Menzies.

      It fits. smile

    • poa says:

      04:30pm | 19/07/11

      Love it! The hypocricy is staggering. First our labor Lovin media tried to compare Joolya with Dame Margaret Thatcher.
      Then John Howard.
      Now your’e channelling Winston Churchill.
      And exceptionally selectively at that.
      Hate to tell you that Winnie would probably tell you to stick your head out the window and check the climate out for yourself.
      Unfortunately..neither can know for sure as he’s dead.
      So Gillard’s tax.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      06:51pm | 19/07/11

      @ Bob 10.36: This release today from NSW Senator John Williams shows how shaky things are getting: LABOR ON THE WAY OUT- WINDSOR

      The Member for New England Tony Windsor is admitting the new paradigm is just about over.

      In a radio interview on radio 2TM, Mr. Windsor said he believes Labor will not win the next election.

      The Nationals Senator for New South Wales John Williams said this is proof that Mr.Windsor and the Member for Lyne Rob Oakeshott made a horrible mistake in September last year when they put Labor back into power.

      Senator Williams said Mr.Windsor until now had been a staunch supporter of the Labor-Greens government, but even he now concedes it is a shambles and has lost the total faith of the Australian people.

      “He is a slow learner. Since he threw his lot in with Labor his electorate has been warning it was the wrong thing to do, and at the recent State election the Independent brand was belted into almost non-existence because of what happened at a Federal level.

      Mr. Windsor can still redeem himself by telling the Prime Minister she no longer has his support for the carbon tax. If he continues to support the carbon tax he is complicit in the misleading statement uttered by the Prime Minister prior to the election that there would be no carbon tax under the government she Ieads”, Senator Williams said.

    • bobw says:

      07:10pm | 19/07/11

      Wow, another Coalition press release, this one verbatim!  Thanks John.

    • persephone says:

      07:19pm | 19/07/11

      Quoting an Opposition Senator is proof that the government’s in trouble?

      In that case, every government since the dawn of time has been in dire straits.

      What did you expect Senator Williams to say? That he thought Labor was the best and that Windsor was right to vote for him?

      I note that Windsor has also said that he doesn’t care whether or not he is re elected, as long as he knows he’s done the right things when he had the opportunity.

    • MarK says:

      08:01pm | 19/07/11

      “I note that Windsor has also said that he doesn’t care whether or not he is re elected, as long as he knows he’s done the right things when he had the opportunity.

      Which is what people say when they realise that history will treat them very harshly indeed.

      Liking them polls pers? Thanks god they got the detail out on the tax.

    • Tutti Fruiti says:

      08:49am | 20/07/11

      This is what the Wall Street Journal says about our PM - The Last Carbon Taxer - our country is going backwards under Gillard, her Government must go, we demand an election :http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576447910279095574.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
      She is a joke to say that WE must keep up with the rest of the world.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      08:02pm | 19/07/11

      Time will tell boby and pers and right now it’s pretty obvious it ain’t on your side. Oh I forget all will be well when we get used to this new tax that is going to save, er, what was it again? Oh yeah jobs and global climate (:

    • Up the Abbottohs !! says:

      08:22pm | 19/07/11

      Your comment:july 11 2011 to July 1 2012 Abbott is unbeatable. Carbon Tax is seen as huge big lifestyle change by voters! Abbott in heaven.Gillard in hell!
      After July 1 201 2, Fillard is unbeatable when carbon tax is implemented as Carbon Tax is seen by voters as an extremely small microscopic lifestyle change. Abbott in hell! Gillard in Heaven!1

    • Noogoora says:

      10:04pm | 19/07/11

      It’s a bit rich expecting the independents to change their minds. They are gone for all money at the next election, so why would they swap sides now and bring it on early? No, they would not have the decency to fall on their swords.
      The carbon tax is a massive fraud foist on the Australia people. So we plan to cut carbon emissions by 5% by 2020? What will that achieve except pain in the name of the stupid (and certainly unsubstantiated) claim that we are experiencing “global warming” caused by human activity. China planse to INCREASE its carbon emissions by 500% by 2020.
      Labor is finished and the Greens with them. They will still seek to get revenge for the polls in the remaining time they have left (e.g. Brown’s ideas for censorship). But that is testament to their basic character. Even if the Greens still hold the balance of power after the next election, Abbott would only have to call for a double dissolution (easy to get the requirements) and sweep both Houses clean.
      Come to think of it, if Gillard had any sense of honour or decency, she would request a double dissolution now and ask the people to make their choice.
      Those who say Gillard leads the elected government need to be reminded that in a democracy we elect people on the basis of what they say they intend to do, with some expectation that they will honour their word. We do NOT vote for people on the basis of who we think is the best liar.

    • Clare Harris says:

      07:28pm | 23/07/11

      Ozzy has become a laughing stock… thanks for nothing Bob and Juliar

    • Clare Harris says:

      01:19pm | 23/07/11

      Tony Abbott is NOT fighting them in the fish markets…. he is simply running a parallel race, with a common cap and trade programme…. under a different name. If he came out and said NO CARBON TAX becuase we do not need it…. he would be showing a backbone. he is too spineless right now…... http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/looking-for-a-new-backbone/

      We want and election, we want a leader who will pull us out of the UN’s “gimmie more money” scheme,  if TONY proves he has a backbone then the nation will vote for him and support him.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

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

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

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

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter