- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
The government had lined up the ETS as a trigger for a double dissolution election, but Malcolm Turnbull denied them this with his last minute agreement.
So now they are focusing on the private health rebate changes, just defeated, and vowing to bring this back before the end of the year, even calling Parliament back at considerable cost to vote on it again in December.
Meantime, all of Labor are denying that they are looking for an early election trigger. Rubbish. They would like to go to the polls with an early election before having to deliver the next Budget which will surely contain many new taxes and charges to pay for the wasteful largesse delivered so far.
How utterly stupid that we will see essential services, health, education, and god knows what else, cut in order to pay for $900 stimulus cheques that were in many cases wasted, not to mention amounts like $250,000 for a one pupil school! It just beggars belief.
Well, Duckman, the Coalition aren't making any ground because they are hopelessly divided about their stand on climate change. The Nationals absolutely oppose the ETS in any form, and think the Coalition should simply vote against it.I cannot understand how the Coalition cannot be making ground on Rudd over the position of Climate Change alone!!!
Well, Duckman, the Coalition aren't making any ground because they are hopelessly divided about their stand on climate change. The Nationals absolutely oppose the ETS in any form, and think the Coalition should simply vote against it.
Turnbull, on the other hand, plus some of his more politically savvy colleagues, recognise that to do this would almost certainly trigger a double dissolution which the government would obviously win.
That would be the death of Turnbull.
So presumably he figures he is better to negotiate the ETS with the government, and hopefully allow time to work for him as the electorate gradually realises the extra taxes and charges (a) involved in the ETS, and (b) imposed in an attempt to get the budget back into surplus after the mighty splurge.
Well, Duckman, the Coalition aren't making any ground because they are hopelessly divided about their stand on climate change. The Nationals absolutely oppose the ETS in any form, and think the Coalition should simply vote against it.
Turnbull, on the other hand, plus some of his more politically savvy colleagues, recognise that to do this would almost certainly trigger a double dissolution which the government would obviously win.
That would be the death of Turnbull.
So presumably he figures he is better to negotiate the ETS with the government, and hopefully allow time to work for him as the electorate gradually realises the extra taxes and charges (a) involved in the ETS, and (b) imposed in an attempt to get the budget back into surplus after the mighty splurge.
There's no doubt that the government, despite the amazing level of stuff ups in the schools programme etc, are united, obsessively 'on message', and way more politically competent than the Opposition (sadly).
You could well be right.I see things slightly differently. I think that Labor loves having the Coalition "all over the place" on Climate Change. But I don't think that Labor want to trigger a double dissolution on the back of Climate Change, on the basis that IF the Coalition ever get their act together they might be a voice that resonates with the public.
I'd have thought public sentiment was moving in the other direction, i.e. more people are now against an ETS, at least prior to Copenhagen, than was the case a year or so ago.Things have changed with the publics mood towards climate change but not to the extent that we have become a "Green Voting Nation".
Me too!I hate the idea of Turnbull nuzzling up to Rudd over climate change.
OK, we'll have to agree to differ on this. I don't think the voting public would cop an election on such a small measure as the health insurance change which is only going to affect a very small proportion of the electorate, but they (reluctantly) would on climate change because (a) there is much more passion about this, and (b) an ETS would affect every single person in Australia.Firstly, as it plays into Labors hands, secondly I think it is bad policy and thirdly it shows very little differentiation between the parties. No good being like Rudd!! If you have the same policy as Rudd and he has approval rating of 70%and yours is 25% - you ain't moving into the lodge!!! There are any number of reasons I wouldn't give Labor the opportunity for an early election but Climate Change wouldn't be one of them. That's why I think Labor are going headfirst into Health Insurance.
Yep, they need a tactic like that. So far they are just floundering and waffling.I agree with some of the earlier comments about getting some good advisers and spin doctors in. I thought Brendan Nelson made a point yesterday when he likened the Labor stance to climate change to effectively increasing the GST to 12.5%. You start a campaign up like that and it will be amazing how much people might review their position. But, they need to improve their performances.
Completely agree on this. Not just from the political point of view, but also because to hold out on the health insurance change makes it look too much to the lower demographic in the electorate that the Libs are protecting the wealthy.If the Coalition played it smart it would agree to any policy changes for the Health Insurance Rebate and any other minor policies
Good point. I don't think we'll find out, though, because Turnbull is clearly determined to co-operate on the ETS.and stay right away from Climate Change and ETS. Make it known that Labor have called an early election on THAT alone. My bet is that Rudd won't have the balls to do it. Not many political parties have won going into an election on a platform of increased taxes (which is what he is doing), let alone calling an early election to do it!!
OK, we'll have to agree to differ on this. I don't think the voting public would cop an election on such a small measure as the health insurance change which is only going to affect a very small proportion of the electorate, but they (reluctantly) would on climate change because (a) there is much more passion about this, and (b) an ETS would affect every single person in Australia.
Australian Gothic is a painting by Grant Wood from 1930. Its inspiration came from a cottage designed in the Gothic Revival style with a distinctive upper window and a decision to paint the house along with "the kind of people I fancied should live in that house." The painting shows a PIEFACED egalitarian standing beside a woman whose identity remains ambiguous; she may either be his spinster daughter, as explained by the artist's sister, or the farmer's barren political animal wife. The figures were modeled by the artist's dentist and sister. The woman is dressed in a colonial print apron mimicking 19th century Australiana and the couple are in the traditional roles of men and women, the man's pitchfork symbolizing hard labor (UNION POWER), and the kangaroo over the woman's right shoulder suggesting her true ocker image.
Exactly and both he and Turnbull know this.The big problem in "playing who blinks first" with Rudd is that he would love to go to an early election before next years budget. The full force of the "stimulus package" is yet to be felt. The full force will be felt when the Government wants its money back (starting with Budget 2010) . While he might get knocked around in an early election everything is in his favour.
I think Mr Turnbull will roll over on pretty much any issue at all because he can't afford an early election before the voters have understood what they are in for with the next Budget. The government know this absolutely, and so they have Turnbull on toast.He might just take the risk anyway. I just can't see any sense for the Coalition taking the "high ground" on an election based on Health Insurance.
assuming the meda were to give him or her fair coverage?
Well that's the catch isn't it - we know the media is biased. There must be a way to combat it though, even the US has Fox News. There has to be a weak link somewhere - radio, news, papers, etc. All it may take for a fire is a well-placed spark.
I can't help but think that Malcom is playing a loser's game. It seems he's waiting for the media to come around, and therefore not playing on his terms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?