Turnbull for PM

[IFocus]

Turnbull is a small L liberal that would attract those voters that only voted green so they didn't have to vote for Gillard or Abbott. He is more likely to get senate power that any of the others. He is a capitalist at heart and a damn good one at that. Abbott will be delighted with the precedent set by the NSW government regarding retrospective legislation and will be working out what he can do in that regard. He will have more non core promises than Costello ever thought possible. A drovers dog will defeat Gillard. It is long term and control of the Senate that should be the goal.

I think you are absolutely on the money Nioka on all your points.

 

[Knobby22]

Is this even achievable? Or feel good politics? Was there a time frame for this? I doubt a realistic one.

.

2025

 

[springhill]

2025

Thanks Knobby, do you have a link?
Wonder if there was any mention of job losses, that's a big target in only 14 years.

 

[Julia]

Thanks Knobby, do you have a link?
Wonder if there was any mention of job losses, that's a big target in only 14 years.

Indeed. However, in the account I heard of it yesterday (ABC Radio) it is non binding, i.e. simply a target to aim for. Probably a bit like Labor government surpluses in Australia.

 

[Knobby22]

Indeed. However, in the account I heard of it yesterday (ABC Radio) it is non binding, i.e. simply a target to aim for. Probably a bit like Labor government surpluses in Australia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions

The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue.

Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament that the "carbon budget" – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in law.

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's climate change chief, hailed the outcome as "very encouraging" and "an example" to other countries, which she said showed that countries could pursue economic growth while cutting emissions. "This is a recognition that to be very ambitious on public spending [cuts] does not mean you can't be ambitious on climate change targets," she told the Guardian.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the government advisory body that proposed the target, said: "This is going to deliver higher [economic] growth for the UK. It could well give us lower electricity prices in the future than our competitors."

Huhne – currently at the centre of claims he persuaded someone else to take speeding penalty points on his behalf – said the government would produce plans later in the year laying out ways to compensate energy-hungry businesses for any competitive disadvantage. The policies necessary to meet the new carbon targets will be set out in October.

Fears that ministers would reject the Committee on Climate Change's proposals for pollution limits in the fourth "carbon budget" had prompted an outcry from environmentalist groups.

The carbon budget runs from 2023 to 2027, part of efforts to meet legally binding emissions cuts of 80% by 2050, and will put the UK on target for 60% cuts by 2030. There will be a review of the budget in 2014, under a compromise.

The chancellor, George Osborne, Phillip Hammond, the transport secretary, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, were against the so-called fourth carbon budget, and secured the review of the ambitious targets should other EU countries fail to match them.

Environmentalists believe the timing of the 2014 review, shortly before an election, would make it difficult for the Conservatives to weaken the targets. The Climate Change Act also stipulates that the plans can only be changed in response to external circumstances.

 

[IFocus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions

The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue.

Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament that the "carbon budget" – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in law.

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's climate change chief, hailed the outcome as "very encouraging" and "an example" to other countries, which she said showed that countries could pursue economic growth while cutting emissions. "This is a recognition that to be very ambitious on public spending [cuts] does not mean you can't be ambitious on climate change targets," she told the Guardian.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the government advisory body that proposed the target, said: "This is going to deliver higher [economic] growth for the UK. It could well give us lower electricity prices in the future than our competitors."

Huhne – currently at the centre of claims he persuaded someone else to take speeding penalty points on his behalf – said the government would produce plans later in the year laying out ways to compensate energy-hungry businesses for any competitive disadvantage. The policies necessary to meet the new carbon targets will be set out in October.

Fears that ministers would reject the Committee on Climate Change's proposals for pollution limits in the fourth "carbon budget" had prompted an outcry from environmentalist groups.

The carbon budget runs from 2023 to 2027, part of efforts to meet legally binding emissions cuts of 80% by 2050, and will put the UK on target for 60% cuts by 2030. There will be a review of the budget in 2014, under a compromise.

The chancellor, George Osborne, Phillip Hammond, the transport secretary, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, were against the so-called fourth carbon budget, and secured the review of the ambitious targets should other EU countries fail to match them.

Environmentalists believe the timing of the 2014 review, shortly before an election, would make it difficult for the Conservatives to weaken the targets. The Climate Change Act also stipulates that the plans can only be changed in response to external circumstances.

Makes the arguments here seem really lame.

 

[sptrawler]

It also highlights the stupidity of charging ahead with a plan devised by the goon show. Instead of adopting a wait and see approach, then implementing a policy that the major players are going to implement.
No that would be too sensible for this government. They would much prefer to invent the square wheel, then try to tell everyone how clever they are.

 

[sptrawler]

Anyway getting back on thread, Malcom is giving Tony live practice on how to deal with a w-----er in the midst

 

[sptrawler]

Now, later in the day I see Malcolm has got the shovel out and is trying to backfill the hole.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...gain-liberal-mps/story-fn59niix-1226059726470

 

[springhill]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions

The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue.

Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament that the "carbon budget" – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in law.

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's climate change chief, hailed the outcome as "very encouraging" and "an example" to other countries, which she said showed that countries could pursue economic growth while cutting emissions. "This is a recognition that to be very ambitious on public spending [cuts] does not mean you can't be ambitious on climate change targets," she told the Guardian.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the government advisory body that proposed the target, said: "This is going to deliver higher [economic] growth for the UK. It could well give us lower electricity prices in the future than our competitors."

Huhne – currently at the centre of claims he persuaded someone else to take speeding penalty points on his behalf – said the government would produce plans later in the year laying out ways to compensate energy-hungry businesses for any competitive disadvantage. The policies necessary to meet the new carbon targets will be set out in October.

Fears that ministers would reject the Committee on Climate Change's proposals for pollution limits in the fourth "carbon budget" had prompted an outcry from environmentalist groups.

The carbon budget runs from 2023 to 2027, part of efforts to meet legally binding emissions cuts of 80% by 2050, and will put the UK on target for 60% cuts by 2030. There will be a review of the budget in 2014, under a compromise.

The chancellor, George Osborne, Phillip Hammond, the transport secretary, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, were against the so-called fourth carbon budget, and secured the review of the ambitious targets should other EU countries fail to match them.

Environmentalists believe the timing of the 2014 review, shortly before an election, would make it difficult for the Conservatives to weaken the targets. The Climate Change Act also stipulates that the plans can only be changed in response to external circumstances.

Makes the arguments here seem really lame.

IFocus, any wonder why the British Parliament chose 1990 rather than 2010 levels? Because in 1990 they omitted 800mT of carbon and recent levels have been around 620-630mT, so in fact THEY ARE ALREADY NEARLY HALF WAY THERE to their 400m target. Cutting emissions by 200mT doesn't sound as grand as 400mT does it?

Oh that's right 1990 were benchmark emissions.
"Benchmark emissions", just another phrase for a number we pulled out of thin air that suits us.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9466135/uk-pledges-to-cut-carbon-emissions-in-half/

 

[explod]

Having consulted myself and opened another can I conclude that it is time to dust this thread off to see if from a Government point of view we might be able to save this wonderful country of ours.

Gillard has no hope against chauvinism and Abbott is too close to the dogma of the Cardinal. The new Pope cant help as he is busy with the poor and most voter4s in Australia are only worried about their own hip pockets.

As a Green of course my efforts are for working on the ground and at this time realise that most of you are going to have to continue to lose almost everything till it is realised that money is only there so that you do not have to carry your own bag of spuds and chooks with you. When the money runs out we will see how useful the Merc on the new freeway really is for sustenance.

In the interim Turnbull may at least stop the financial bleeding and get us back to working in Parliament for people and not for blo.dy Parliamentarians.

 

[drsmith]

Don't drink too many of those cans there plod.

They will only give you a headache.

 

[Sean K]

I don't think it will be too long after the election that Turnbull supporters push him to take the helm. I hope he doesn't and stays a team man for at least one term in government, just to get some stability back in politics. But, I have a feeling he'll be pushed.

At least he's been honest about the talk and towing the party line.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...prefer-him-to-tony-abbott-20130714-2pxqm.html

 

[So_Cynical]

I don't think it will be too long after the election that Turnbull supporters push him to take the helm. I hope he doesn't and stays a team man for at least one term in government, just to get some stability back in politics. But, I have a feeling he'll be pushed.

At least he's been honest about the talk and towing the party line.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...prefer-him-to-tony-abbott-20130714-2pxqm.html

Surely they will move before the election? how can the Noalition go into the election with a leader that has a preferred PM rating significantly lower than MT and Significantly lower than Rudd....there is no Aust, historical precedent that would support Tony winning with such a low preferred PM rating.

 

[Julia]

Surely they will move before the election? how can the Noalition go into the election with a leader that has a preferred PM rating significantly lower than MT and Significantly lower than Rudd....there is no Aust, historical precedent that would support Tony winning with such a low preferred PM rating.

That's probably a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
For sure, Malcolm Turnbull is more popular and his leadership might be enough to avert the extraordinary regard people with short memories seem to have for Rudd, but the moral downside of dumping a leader who has successfully fought two Prime Ministers and who has brought the Coalition out of a complete funk, would be considerable imo.

How could the Coalition do this in the face or their criticism of Labor's behaviour in this regard?

 

[Logique]

The Left's choice, but not going to happen.

Tony Abbott will be great PM. Why else would Labor be so obsessed with him.

http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/wentworth.htm
...In terms of area, the division of Wentworth is the smallest division in Australia...

 

[drsmith]

For Malcolm Turnbull to return to the leadership of the Liberal Party prior to the next election, he would for a start have to be as dishonest as Kevin Rudd.

He said there would not be a leadership change in the Liberals before the federal election this year.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...prefer-him-to-tony-abbott-20130714-2pxqm.html

 

[So_Cynical]

The Left's choice, but not going to happen.

Tony Abbott will be great PM. Why else would Labor be so obsessed with him.

Fine but in order to be PM you have to actually win the election.
~

 

[sptrawler]

The Left's choice, but not going to happen.

Tony Abbott will be great PM. Why else would Labor be so obsessed with him.

+1
The coalition would be stupid to follow the Labor party modus operandi of changing your leader, reversing your policy stance as a reaction to polls.
It just shows a lack of discipline and lack of belief in your party and policy platform.
I don't think there will be much, if any, difference in the election result, with Rudd.

 

[Some Dude]

The coalition would be stupid to follow the Labor party modus operandi of changing your leader, reversing your policy stance as a reaction to polls.

Did that work for Abbott originally?