This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Shorten PM material?

Is Shorten PM material?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • No

    Votes: 31 83.8%
  • Total voters
    37
Jump to new


Yes, the longer Shorten is the leader of the Labor Party the more I like it.

But you had to have a good laugh at the bloke.....He did it really well.
 
noco said:
Yes, the longer Shorten is the leader of the Labor Party the more I like it.

But you had to have a good laugh at the bloke.....He did it really well.
Click to expand...

If that piece of garbage was taking the piss out of Tony Abbott, you would be screaming like a baby.
 
Macquack said:
If that piece of garbage was taking the piss out of Tony Abbott, you would be screaming like a baby.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do believe he did do one one on either Abbott or Hockey...I will try to dig it up for you.
 
Shorten says he will clean up Tony Abbott's mess on the FTA with China.......What a joke this guy is.

Please read all the comments about Shorten and the trade unions.......Shorten is as scared as hell with the unions.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n again. From 40+ years as a Labor voter.[/B]
 
I would not want Pliberseck as Labor leader. She is too far left and not pragmatic enough. If Labor want a change they should go for Bowen or maybe Albanese. Shorten has shortcomings, but so does everyone in either Party. If Labor come up with good policies people will vote for them regardless of who is leader.
 

God spare us Tanya, please someone send me a canoe without a paddle and GPS coordinates to a 5hit creek so I can practice.

Labor still ahead where it counts, by 6%
 

But that's the problem:
Labor has had "good policies" (in the opinion of some at least) that were howled down by the power-hungry and influential, the right-wingers, and the willing press hacks. Abbott has built his career on obstruction and secrecy. Hardly surprising that many of the under-educated can't tell good from bad and fall for populist promises when the truth is being suppressed.

Let's see if the new plan to achieve RET of 50% by 2030 can be presented convincingly.
 

If Pliberseck ever became Prime Minister and started touring the world meeting World leaders with the number one first bloke with a record of serving 9 years behind bars......What sort of an image would she present for Australia.

Really, there is not much talent in the Labor Party to take on the leadership.
 


I now think it was a blunder not going with Albanese he would have taken Abbott.
 

Ermm not quite noco ... given 9 year sentence for narcotics on a jumped up charge (conspiracy to import half a kilo of heroin) and spent 3 years in the clink. Fully rehabilitated now. Was a junky and shared needles with gay men (his own admission)

He was headhunted for the position of director-general of the NSW Department of Commerce and in 2007 was made the director-general of the NSW Department of Education and Training.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-addiction-20150212-13cqrh.html#ixzz3gbeGzgVb
 
pixel said:
Let's see if the new plan to achieve RET of 50% by 2030 can be presented convincingly.
Click to expand...
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/labor-dreams-of-50pc-renewables-by-2030-20150722-gii21l


The article headline sums it up well.
 
IFocus said:
I now think it was a blunder not going with Albanese he would have taken Abbott.
Click to expand...

Albanese or Bowen, would have at least stood for something.

Shorten is the Steven Bradbury of politics.IMO

Mr Beige, which in turns makes him epitomise, what a lot of people dislike about politicians. Again only my opinion.

I liked Bowen when he had the immigration portfolio, he expressed his concern at policy flaws, yet carried the task well.
Unfortunately he hasn't shone, in his current portfolio, suspect under pressure.lol
 

Poor old Bill may have his wings clipped on the weekend......More on his back flip saga.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-turnback-policy/story-fntzoymg-1227452897779

LABOR is headed for civil war after Opposition Leader Bill Shorten decided to match Tony Abbott’s asylum seeker policy and enforce boat turn-backs.

Mr Shorten’s backflip comes nine months after he slapped down suggestions by his immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, that Labor might be open to the possibility.

ANALYSIS: BOAT MOVE WILL TEST LABOR

MARLES: WHY WE WILL TURN THEM BACK

Mr Shorten and Mr Marles will unveil the new policy at Labor’s national conference this weekend.

But the policy, which also locks in offshore processing, prompted an immediate uprising on the party’s Left, which fiercely opposes turn-backs.

Former Speaker Anna Burke, a member of the Left, said this week: “Labor should in no way support turning back asylum seeker boats.’’

The new policy looks likely to be put to a vote at the conference.

But the votes from Labor’s Left and Right are virtually even, so it is a vote that Mr Shorten could lose — and along with it, his authority.

Labor’s Left faction will meet at midday today to sign off on its conference positions.
 
One would imagine that internally, Bill has crunched-the-numbers on boat turn backs before coming to a public position. That after all has been his primary skill.

There's also the question of how real the policy would be beyond the words.


http://www.afr.com/news/politics/bill-shorten-to-back-boat-turnbacks-20150722-gihums
 
Bill Shorten’s policies to date:

1. If screwing the workers is necessary to further my own career then do it.
2. If I can’t think of any new policies then use the Coalitions (with modifications to try and hide the fact that I’m copying them).
3. There will be turnbacks in the government I lead………… maybe. (see 2. Above)
4. On gay marriage… well yes, well no, well maybe, well later on.
5. On fixing the financial mess we left Australia in ……… (empty set).
6. There will be no carbon tax in the government I lead. Just an ETS tax which some people are calling a tax (nasty people).
7. Umm……*
8. Umm……*
9. Umm……*
10. Umm……*

* Indicates blank thought bubble
 
Hard to add anymore.

The pillars of society are crumbling
 
explod said:
Hard to add anymore.

The pillars of society are crumbling
Click to expand...

How about a carbon tax to lift the house hold costs by $600 and hit the poor old working Mums and Dads.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...485953286?sv=c260e62fca1d733d658820b441fdbcfb

If you want to know what the lead-filled sock of fate has in store for us, look no further than Labor’s *climate-change policies.

With barely one per cent of *global emissions, Bill Shorten would have us mandate a share of renewable energy two times greater than that aimed at by the world’s largest emitters.

The threat that poses to consumers, who would face dramatic increases in power bills, is obvious; but the mere possibility of so *irrational a policy — which would squander an amount equivalent to the sum of the budget deficits over the forward estimates — must compound the sovereign risk that is already damaging Australia’s international competitiveness.

Of course, the renewables lobby has beamed with joy ever since Shorten announced that “Labor’s ambition is to see 50 per cent of our electricity energy mix generated by renewable energy by 2030”. And however poor renewables may be at actually generating power, that lobby’s capacity to generate spurious arguments would make the sun shine at night.

We have, for example, been told that far from raising prices, the Renewable Energy Target reduces them. However, that is only true for so long as the growing stock of renewables adds to overcapacity in the National Electricity Market, forcing prices in that market down to the cash costs of keeping plants going. In addition to being inherently inefficient (since it makes no sense to aggravate a capacity glut), any benefit to consumers must be short-lived, as prices will rise once the surplus plants leave the market.

But it is even worse than that. In most markets, when supply exceeds demand, it is the highest cost suppliers who get knocked out, cushioning the price increases associated with a return to balance. In this market, however, the exact opposite is occurring, as the renewables mandate ensures the costliest capacity remains while cheaper capacity is prematurely scrapped.

That process is already apparent, with expensive renewables accounting for 98 per cent of the 1100 megawatts of capacity added last year to the NEM, while coal plants, which have low operating costs, accounted for 90 per cent of the 4500 MW that have been withdrawn or whose withdrawal has been announced.

Were the renewables target nearly doubled, as Labor proposes, the distortion would be even more severe. Quantifying the impacts involves myriad assumptions; but a reasonable estimate (derived using a model developed for the Minerals Council by electricity specialists Principal Economics) is that increasing the renewables *— target would raise the costs of power by $86 billion, which amounts to $600 per household per year.

Given that the average family has an annual electricity bill of some $1600, adding $600 is hardly trivial. Nor could anyone claim $86bn is small change for the Australian economy as a whole: not only is it more than twice this year’s budget deficit, but it exceeds the total deficits forecast over the period to 2018-19.

And since any abatement it buys could be obtained far more cheaply by other means, it would be wasteful even were cutting emissions worthwhile.

However, the economic costs of Labor’s proposal don’t end there. After all, Shorten also intends to introduce a tax on carbon. While the details have not been released, it is clear any such scheme would disproportionately raise the costs of the coal-fired generators, accelerating their exit, and so further boosting prices. And by piling a carbon tax on top of the tax associated with the RET, it could make the distortions caused by increasing the RET even greater than the $86bn cited above.

The extent of the additional loss will depend both on the *precise nature of Labor’s carbon tax scheme and on its rate. But Treasury’s modelling of Julia *Gillard’s carbon tax suggests that, given a carbon tax, the additional loss from raising the RET would (on an admittedly rough estimate) be in the order of $38bn, taking the total cost of Shorten’s renewables policy well over $100bn.

Not that the renewables lobby would ever accept those figures. Rather, it argues that the cost of renewables will plummet as their share in the energy mix rises. But those arguments are hopelessly flawed.

To begin with, as the Productivity Commission found in reviewing the original modelling for the carbon tax, Australia’s share of global investment in renewables is so small that any scale economies from doubling that share would reduce costs by less than one-tenth of one per cent. Moreover, far from falling, the economic costs of increasing wind capacity are likely to rise, as many of the best sites have already been taken, forcing growth to occur where transmission costs are high and *capacity utilisation low and intermittent.

And with massive demand in the developing world for coal and gas plants, technological progress in fossil-fuel generation is at least as rapid as that in renewables, keeping it highly cost competitive.

Little wonder then that in the US, states such as West Virginia and Kansas have now decided to scrap their renewable energy mandates altogether, while Ohio has deferred the steady increases its law originally required. And as data from the US federal Energy Information Administration shows, electricity is 22.9 per cent more costly in those states with renewables mandates than in those without, competition to attract footloose capital and labour seems set to accelerate the trend away from compulsory targets.

Such a move would make even more sense in Australia, given our uniquely abundant resources of brown coal that is costly to transport. Those resources, and the very low power prices they allowed, have long underpinned our prosperity; by throwing what little remains of that advantage away, Shorten’s policy, were it ever *implemented, would be a one-way ticket to energy hell.
 
^^^^^and that,dear readers endeth the lesson on how to destroy Oz's only international competitive advantage.

Well played Australia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten For PM
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Garpal Gumnut
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...