ABC is Political

[FlyingFox]

Obviously there should be a NO option otherwise it's a question with response choices which leave the possibility open.

Duh! that is usually the point of these surveys, to leave this open. I answered your question re this in my first post. The survey answers are balanced. Therefore there is no bias. We are going in circles. Your response to this has been that there should be a no, only because that is how you would like to answer.

Let me put it to you this way. If the survey asked to answer the question with a points scale with -100 as definitely no and 100 as definitely yes. How many people would answer at -100 and 100? Given a limited sample what can you say about these results?

Times change ? if the Libs bring it up again fair enough but it's not an issue with them just for the ABC and anyone who sees an opportunity for a scare campaign like that rats nest in the Lodge at present.

This is not a scare campaign just because you think it is. It is a legitimate question that many people will ask themselves. Fine you think Julia Gillard is a liar. Why should I believe Tony Abbott then?? Just because he said so? Just because you say so?

 

[FlyingFox]

My guess is that if a no option (and a yes) option had been given, even more complaints would have been generated by people claiming that the ABC was trying to dilute to response.

But that would be science and my god statistics ... we can't have that ... that is for the tree hugging communist hippies. In "my gut feeling" we trust ...

 

[MrBurns]

Duh! that is usually the point of these surveys, to leave this open. I answered your question re this in my first post. The survey answers are balanced. Therefore there is no bias. We are going in circles. Your response to this has been that there should be a no, only because that is how you would like to answer.

Yes you are going round in circles and refuse to see the flaw in asking a question about an issues that was closed 5 years ago and how it is obviously politically motivated.............the public aren't interested at all, the ABC just stirs ****.

This is not a scare campaign just because you think it is. It is a legitimate question that many people will ask themselves. Fine you think Julia Gillard is a liar. Why should I believe Tony Abbott then?? Just because he said so? Just because you say so?

No it's a scare campaign because it is.

a question many people will ask themselves

??? Who ? I don't know anyone who even remembers it in detail.

Julia Gillard is a liar, fact proven, Abbott isn't a liar because you think he might be one day.

 

[Some Dude]

Yes you are going round in circles and refuse to see the flaw in asking a question about an issues that was closed 5 years ago and how it is obviously politically motivated.............the public aren't interested at all, the ABC just stirs ****.

But that is demonstratively false. Regular polling has shown that the majority of the public do think it is a valid concern. I disagree with them but I can't agree with your comments here.

No it's a scare campaign because it is. ??? Who ? I don't know anyone who even remembers it in detail.

Julia Gillard is a liar, fact proven, Abbott isn't a liar because you think he might be one day.

Tony Abbott and the gospel truth.

But because this process is instructive, which Julia Gillard lie are you referring to? Let's see if you can at least pick one that is real.

 

[FlyingFox]

Yes you are going round in circles and refuse to see the flaw in asking a question about an issues that was closed 5 years ago and how it is obviously politically motivated.............the public aren't interested at all, the ABC just stirs ****.

I'm the public and I am interested in it ...

No it's a scare campaign because it is. ??? Who ? I don't know anyone who even remembers it in detail.

Julia Gillard is a liar, fact proven, Abbott isn't a liar because you think he might be one day.

So that's what it comes down to, you can't even justify your own arguments so it's just I am right because I say so ...

 

[MrBurns]

But that is demonstratively false. Regular polling has shown that the majority of the public do think it is a valid concern. I disagree with them but I can't agree with your comments here.

Regular polling also shows that people will respond to any poll and mostly in the negative depending on how the question is framed.

But because this process is instructive, which Julia Gillard lie are you referring to? Let's see if you can at least pick one that is real.

Take your pick, add the Carbon Tax as a featured lie, a major lie one which will go down in Labor history and one they will never recover from -

https://www.liberal.org.au/labor-tells-lies

 

[MrBurns]

I'm the public and I am interested in it ...

No I mean reasonable normal people.

So that's what it comes down to, you can't even justify your own arguments so it's just I am right because I say so ...

When you cant understand reason you must be told, like a child.

 

[FlyingFox]

Regular polling also shows that people will respond to any poll and mostly in the negative depending on how the question is framed.

Can you back this up?

Take your pick, add the Carbon Tax as a featured lie, a major lie one which will go down in Labor history and one they will never recover from -

https://www.liberal.org.au/labor-tells-lies

Pointing us straight to Liberal propaganda page... you sir are not biased at all...

 

[MrBurns]

Can you back this up?

It's common sense , Google loaded questions or begging the question.

Pointing us straight to Liberal propaganda page... you sir are not biased at all...

Is there anything in there you would care to dispute ?
Even the most mild mannered Labor simpleton, Kevin Rudd for instance, knows that Gillard is a liar,

 

[Some Dude]

Regular polling also shows that people will respond to any poll and mostly in the negative depending on how the question is framed.

That means nothing in the context that it is a concern for people. You simply don't like the question or possible implications that traction for that point would have. As I said, I happen to agree with you that it is wrong but it is not push polling.

Take your pick, add the Carbon Tax as a featured lie, a major lie one which will go down in Labor history and one they will never recover from -

Can you demonstrate or articulate what the Carbon Tax lie was? Given the infamy that you portray it with, it should be easy to do.

 

[MrBurns]

That means nothing in the context that it is a concern for people. You simply don't like the question or possible implications that traction for that point would have. As I said, I happen to agree with you that it is wrong but it is not push polling.



Can you demonstrate or articulate what the Carbon Tax lie was? Given the infamy that you portray it with, it should be easy to do.

She has admitted she changed her mind when circumstances changed = translation = lied.

 

[Some Dude]

She has admitted she changed her mind when circumstances changed = translation = lied.

What did she say? What did she change her mind about? Be specific please, provide quotes and citations

 

[chops_a_must]

Plonkers. The lot of you!

 

[Some Dude]

Plonkers. The lot of you!

Why thank you, this bottle of wine is nice!

 

[MrBurns]

What did she say? What did she change her mind about? Be specific please, provide quotes and citations

She mumbled something about "I know what I said then and you're probably wondering what I'm saying now"

Here's a round up of the most prominent lies, there will be a volume on the smaller ones when the printers can get enough paper in from China, they've never had an order so big.

 

[Some Dude]

She mumbled something about "I know what I said then and you're probably wondering what I'm saying now"

Cross posted and modified from here.

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.

While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election, Ms Gillard would have two potential legislative partners next term - the Coalition or the Greens. She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.

Link.

Who proposed a carbon tax?



So Tony understands the difference between carbon pricing and a carbon tax. He even supported a carbon tax. I wonder what changed his mind?

If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

...

The fact that people don’t really understand what an emissions trading scheme entails is actually its key political benefit. Unlike a tax, which people would instinctively question, it’s easy to accept a trading scheme supported by businesses that see it as a money-making opportunity and environmentalists who assure people that it will help to save the planet. Forget the contested science and the dubious economics, an emissions trading scheme is brilliant, if hardly-honest politics because people have come to think that it’s a cost-less way to avoid climate catastrophe.

Carbon pricing in Australia.

A carbon pricing scheme in Australia, commonly referred to as a carbon tax, was introduced by the Gillard Government on 1 July 2012. It requires businesses emitting over 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually to purchase emissions permits. The scheme directly affects approximately 300 "liable entities" representing the highest emitters in Australia.

...

The introduction of a carbon price in Australia has been controversial. The Federal opposition has accused the Government of breaking an election promise made prior to the 2010 election to not introduce a carbon tax. The Prime Minister has responded to these accusations by saying that circumstances changed following the 2010 election and that accusations of a broken promise are "semantics" and "word games". Opposition leader Tony Abbott has criticised the government's carbon pricing policy on economic grounds referring to it as "toxic" and likening it to an octopus embracing the whole of the economy. He has made a "pledge in blood" to repeal the tax after the 18 clean energy bills passed through the House of Representatives and has stated that the next election will be a referendum on the "carbon tax".

What Julia Gillard said about the carbon tax.

Ms Gillard responded: “I've always believed climate change is real and that it is caused by carbon pollution and we have to reduce the amount we generate. Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest way of reducing that pollution. That's why I decided we should enact the carbon price. It's a fixed price for the first three years - effectively a tax - and then an emissions trading scheme with a cap on carbon pollution.

“… when I said those words I meant every one of them. During the election campaign I spoke about the need to price carbon and have an emissions trading scheme. And now we are pricing carbon - a fixed price to start with - to be followed in three years time by an emissions trading scheme that caps carbon pollution.”

I made sure I posted mainly from sources politically biased in an acceptable manner to people such as yourself

The sad part is that there are valid criticisms to be made but I guess they are not as politically correct to complain about. Julia did say that she would hold a consultative assembly but then did not. Complaining about a cancelled gabfest doesn't have the same ring to it though does it but she did change her mind about that one. It's not the lie though that you want people to believe it to be, is it?

 

[chops_a_must]

By definition in the literature, it's not actually a tax.

 

[Some Dude]

By definition in the literature, it's not actually a tax.

Indeed, hence the video of Tony Abbott proposing a Carbon tax is important. He understood the difference before it became politically convenient to forget that he supported a Carbon Tax.

 

[MrBurns]

Indeed, hence the video of Tony Abbott proposing a Carbon tax is important. He understood the difference before it became politically convenient to forget that he supported a Carbon Tax.

Abbott didn't make a commitment to sway an election then walk away from it after he won, that's Gillard for you, a liar, she also lied to the independents, otherwise they wouldn't have supported her, she's lied her way to the top.

 

[Some Dude]

Abbott didn't make a commitment to sway an election then walk away from it after he won, that's Gillard for you, a liar, she also lied to the independents, otherwise they wouldn't have supported her, she's lied her way to the top.

Gillard said before the election that she would propose a carbon pricing scheme, didn't she? The quote from the Australian demonstrates that she did so before the election. Correct?