Federal Labor Party discussion

[So_Cynical]

What it really shows is that Rudd will do anything to get re-elected. It neutralises one more negative. Rudd can also say he never introduced it. A very wily politician.

And that's in stark contrast to the Noalition who think that they don't need to do anything to get elected.

---------------------------

How is Labor going to get any reduction in its carbon price through the Senate ?

They don't need to, its already legislated, they just drop the tax 1 year early and move to an ETS.

 

[drsmith]

It's hard to believe Windsor was just making **** up. Especially when you see clips of Abbott saying the exact same thing.

I note that in the linked video, Tony Abbott qualifies this view with,

If the simple challenge is to put a price on carbon.......

The reality is that the challenge is far greater than that. For a start it needs to be global, or at least include a vast majority of the world's economy which it currently does not. This feeds into the broad area of not economically overpricing our own carbon dioxide emissions in a global context which our current carbon tax does. That just disadvantages our economy relative to the rest of the world.

While neither political side can cover themselves in glory on their past commentary on this matter, we now have a carbon price that is acknowledged as having serious deficiencies from both the major political parties with Labor's latest acknowledgement of that being an announcement today to bring forward the ETS start up date to reduce the price.

This is the same carbon pricing scheme to which Tony Windsor, the other Labor aligned independents and the Greens agreed and what we've finished up with is a dogs breakfast.

The biggest sin out of all this is that Labor lied and this has set the discussion in Australia back immensely.

In broad discussion relation to managing carbon dioxide emissions, last Monday's Q&A is interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3783606.htm

 

[Some Dude]

The biggest sin out of all this is that Labor lied and this has set the discussion in Australia back immensely.

Except that as we have already discussed, it wasn't a lie. We can discuss our opinions about it being good, bad, etc. but unless you are specifically referring to the consultative assembly, I have already demonstrated to you that Julia Gillard did say she wanted to introduce a carbon price before the election and Tony Abbott understood the difference.

 

[drsmith]

Except that as we have already discussed, it wasn't a lie.

I not going over that again. As you said yourself, there's very little room for ambiguity.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=117&p=782384&viewfull=1#post782384

Others should they wish can re-read that discussion and form whatever conclusions they wish.

 

[springhill]

Setting aside the very public fallout between the Coalition/Nationals and the two NSW independent's, have you ever looked at Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's voting records before the 2010 election?

That has very little, if nothing, to do with current voter opinion. Voter opinions can change in a week, let alone 3 years.

 

[Some Dude]

I not going over that again. As you said yourself, there's very little room for ambiguity.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=117&p=782384&viewfull=1#post782384

Others should they wish can re-read that discussion and form whatever conclusions they wish.

Indeed. That post demonstrated that the reporter left little room for ambiguity when stating that Julia Gillard stated a date for a different topic in that interview, yet for the one we were discussing there was ambiguity which if one accepted your interpretation would conflict with her exact quoted words. I would ask you not to misrepresent what I wrote.

For anyone who wants to follow what was actually said, start from this post here.

 

[springhill]

Tony Windsor was twice the man Tony Abbott ever will be.

Do you have some official scale to measure that on, or are you posting your personal opinion as a factual, numerical statistic?

Also, the polls had him beating Barnaby Joyce at the next election so I'm not sure what you're on about.
"A poll by the resources industry in the past fortnight shows Mr Windsor would win 49 per cent of the primary vote compared with 38 per cent for Senator Joyce." - Fin Review.

The sad this is Mr Windsor hasn't the intestinal fortitude to test his support in the community.

As we all know politicians don't pay attention to polls.

 

[Some Dude]

That has very little, if nothing, to do with current voter opinion. Voter opinions can change in a week, let alone 3 years.

But it does speak to your opinion about betrayal as you put it. Anyone who took notice would know that allusions about "betrayal" do not comport with their voting record and are more likely reflective of people's disappointment with them not doing what they wanted them to do.

 

[chode84]

...or are you posting your personal opinion as a factual, numerical statistic?

errrr... no, it's just an opinion. Obviously.

 

[drsmith]

Indeed. That post demonstrated that the reporter left little room for ambiguity when stating that Julia Gillard stated a date for a different topic in that interview, yet for the one we were discussing there was ambiguity which if one accepted your interpretation would conflict with her exact quoted words. I would ask you not to misrepresent what I wrote.

For anyone who wants to follow what was actually said, start from this post here.

If I was to offer some personal advice, it would be to try and get over losing an argument a little quicker than you have in this instance.

It's not the end of the world. Over time I've lost plenty and in some instances hopefully ended up a little wiser for the experience.

 

[Some Dude]

If I was to offer some personal advice, it would be to try and get over losing an argument a little quicker than you have in this instance.

Thanks, free advice is always appreciated.

Some of my own advice for you. Understand that there is a difference between claiming something and demonstrating it. If you care about whether what you believe and tell others is true, it does make a difference.

You are welcome to continue the conversation that you chose to cease if you wish. If not, I would still ask you not the misrepresent what I wrote.

 

[drsmith]

Thanks, free advice is always appreciated.

Some of my own advice for you. Understand that there is a difference between claiming something and demonstrating it. If you care about whether what you believe and tell others is true, it does make a difference.

You are welcome to continue the conversation that you chose to cease if you wish. If not, I would still ask you not the misrepresent what I wrote.

Apart from the time involved, I don't wish to continue that conversation as you were seeking to introduce other points of argument into that discussion as a means of remediation from losing the primary point of argument.

 

[Some Dude]

Apart from the time involved, I don't wish to continue that conversation as you were seeking to introduce other points of argument into that discussion as a means of remediation from losing the primary point of argument.

Such as?

Again, in the context of claiming versus demonstrating, it was taking a long time trying to help you understand earlier factual points that you were struggling incorporate into your opinion on the matter.

But we eventually got there on at least one of them which is when you chose to drop the topic like a hot potato.

Again, the carbon tax is not a carbon pricing scheme. Technically the ETS was down but I also accept your point here such that this is where my point 3 comes into play and I have acknowledged that that is a slam dunk. The consultation process did not occur despite Julia Gillard stating before the election that she wanted to implement a carbon pricing mechanism.

Are you able to revisit my points because they are pertinent to this discussion as I hope you can now see.

There are many potential avenues for discussion on the points that have been raised and in that sense, one can easily spend more time in front of the small screen debating these issues than perhaps one should.

While I've enjoyed the discussion, I feel a little that way about the amount of time I've spent on this today.

 

[drsmith]

Such as?

I'm simply not interested.

As far as I'm concerned, that particular conversation ended with your eventual acknowledgement about the timing of any ETS from Labor. That's what I was trying to say, politely, at the time.

 

[Some Dude]

I'm simply not interested.

As far as I'm concerned, that particular conversation ended with your eventual acknowledgement about the timing of any ETS from Labor.

As I said, only matters if you care about the truth. In future, do not misrepresent what I write.

 

[drsmith]

As I said, only matters if you care about the truth. In future, do not misrepresent what I write.

Well, you can jump up and down all you like.

I'm afraid the bottom line is that there's no misrepresentation in the truth that Labor lied both about how and when it would price carbon.

 

[Some Dude]

Well, I'm afraid the bottom line is that there's no misrepresentation in the truth that Labor lied both about how and when it would price carbon.

I assume then that you wish to continue the discussion. Let's pick up where we left off.

Are we able to agree on any of the following or can something factual be provided to negate the following as facts on this topic?

1. A carbon tax is different to a carbon pricing scheme. Tony Abbott knows the difference.

2. Per The Australian article and following the precedent from the ETS, a carbon pricing scheme was identified as possible for this parliament.

3. The consultative assembly was not conducted. This is a slam dunk.

4. The fixed period has been acknowledged as "like a tax" and/or "effectively a tax" but per point 1, it's still not a tax.

Are you able to agree with those statements? If not then please be concise with supporting information in stating why not.

 

[sails]

Well, you can jump up and down all you like.

I'm afraid the bottom line is that there's no misrepresentation in the truth that Labor lied both about how and when it would price carbon.

The ignore function works particularly well here at ASF in situations like this...

 

[Some Dude]

The ignore function works particularly well here at ASF in situations like this...

Nah, I don't mind discussing it with people. They won't open their minds to other possibilities if I place them on ignore

It's going to be interesting once people finally realise what labelling it a "carbon tax" has actually done. Someone is going to implement a publicity stunt (ALP or Coalition) to remove the "carbon tax" and lo and behold, nothing will really change.

But ignore me

 

[Calliope]

Plibersek says that Coalition ads dumping on Rudd are "negativity". But that's only because it's hard to find anything positive about Rudd or his policies or his past history.
But it is good to know that Labor will not be putting out any negative ads about Abbott.

But Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek said the advertisement would probably be more damaging for the opposition than for Mr Rudd because voters were sick of negativity.

"It's the same old negativity from Tony Abbott," she told reporters in Sydney.

"In fact, it's more damaging for Tony Abbott because it's exactly what people don't like from the Liberals.

"Everything Tony Abbott has said is about tearing down, negativity, saying no or going back."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ets-rudds-record/story-fni0xqi3-1226679108993