Labor's carbon tax lie

[drsmith]

The political price of the carbon tax,

 

[drsmith]

The thinks people do to try and sell a book.

The book, The Stalking of Julia Gillard, by Kerry-Anne Walsh, quotes Julia Gillard during the 2010 election campaign as follows,

'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.

What she actually said during that ill fated interview,

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change. We’ve invested record amounts in solar and renewable energies. Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid. I also want to make sure we have no more dirty coal-fired power stations. I want to make sure we’re driving greener cars and working from greener buildings. I will be delivering those things, and leading our national debate to reach a consensus about putting a cap on carbon pollution.

Note also the lead in question to the above response by Julia Gillard.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-his-sights-covert-kevins-mission-to-get-julia-20130629-2p3p7.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?-EyW7oFk6n8

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_publishes_fake_quote_excusing_gillards_lie/

 

[Calliope]

If she hadn't lied she would probably still be PM. It is ironic that this lie has done the Coalition more harm than it has done Labor.:screwy:

 

[drsmith]

It is ironic that this lie has done the Coalition more harm than it has done Labor.:screwy:

I wouldn't be so sure of that just yet. It's resulted in Labor assassinating another first term prime-ministership and re-installing a previously assassinated prime-minister, many of whom within the party still hate. And all this time, the Opposition leader has survived.

The game though does get interesting now. Kevin Rudd will no doubt try and reduce the financial (and hence political) impact of the tax by at least moving to an ETS sooner.

The questions will be firstly the extent to which the electorate excuses Labor for the way it introduced the tax in the first place and also the extent it excuses a government for walking away from a leader and this an excuse for walking away from their policy commitments.

The latter in particular has significant consequences for the quality of political leadership in this country.

 

[Calliope]

I wouldn't be so sure of that just yet. It's resulted in Labor assassinating another first term prime-ministership and re-installing a previously assassinated prime-minister, many of whom within the party still hate. And all this time, the Opposition leader has survived.

The game though does get interesting now. Kevin Rudd will no doubt try and reduce the financial (and hence political) impact of the tax by at least moving to an ETS sooner.

The questions will be firstly the extent to which the electorate excuses Labor for the way it introduced the tax in the first place and also the extent it excuses a government for walking away from a leader and this an excuse for walking away from their policy commitments.

The latter in particular has significant consequences for the quality of political leadership in this country.

I was talking in terms of replacing an easy-beat Gillard with the populist Rudd. I have no doubt the Coalition will win the election, but any chance of controlling the Senate is now gone. An increase in Labor votes means an increase in preferences to the Senate Greens who will now probably hold their four seats that are up for re-election. This is Anthony Green's opinion.

 

[Julia]

Has Antony Green said that in the last day, Calliope? i.e. that he has no doubt the Coalition will win the election?
I don't feel at all as certain about that.

 

[JTLP]

Well the bookmakers still have the Coalition pretty short at the $1.20 mark. You don't get in to that business giving up lousy odds

 

[Calliope]

Has Antony Green said that in the last day, Calliope? i.e. that he has no doubt the Coalition will win the election?
I don't feel at all as certain about that.

No. I was referring to the Senate.

An increase in Labor votes means an increase in preferences to the Senate Greens who will now probably hold their four seats that are up for re-election. This is Anthony Green's opinion.

 

[Some Dude]

Well the bookmakers still have the Coalition pretty short at the $1.20 mark. You don't get in to that business giving up lousy odds

A not insignificant amount of money can be made regardless because the odds are adjusted according to how people are betting i.e. the favourite isn't the favourite because the bookie wants them to win, they are the favourite because most people who are placing bets are spending money on them.

As such, anyone who can see past their own political prejudices and look at the data can make a lot of money by assessing where people are betting emotionally against what the data is projecting as the outcome.

 

[Some Dude]

The thinks people do to try and sell a book.

The book, The Stalking of Julia Gillard, by Kerry-Anne Walsh, quotes Julia Gillard during the 2010 election campaign as follows,



What she actually said during that ill fated interview,

How does it sit with this then?

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.

And this?.

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.”

Is the nature of people's opinions on this rooted in the concept that there is no practical difference between a carbon price and a tax? If so, then it was very clearly stated before the election that she wanted to introduce a carbon price and if there is no difference then no problem.

So what really is the nature of the problem?

- - - Updated - - -

If she hadn't lied she would probably still be PM. It is ironic that this lie has done the Coalition more harm than it has done Labor.:screwy:

If you are correct and somehow the coalition don't win (I'm still placing bets that they will), and if the thing that enables this doesn't appear to be the lie that most make it out to be, won't that be the biggest irony of all.

 

[springhill]

How does it sit with this then?



And this?.



Is the nature of people's opinions on this rooted in the concept that there is no practical difference between a carbon price and a tax? If so, then it was very clearly stated before the election that she wanted to introduce a carbon price and if there is no difference then no problem.

So what really is the nature of the problem?

- - - Updated - - -



If you are correct and somehow the coalition don't win (I'm still placing bets that they will), and if the thing that enables this doesn't appear to be the lie that most make it out to be, won't that be the biggest irony of all.

The problem was she was viewed as untrustworthy and a liar. No matter what she said it could not cut through the perception that she, herself, created.

Some Dude, there were a myriad of other lies, or untruths that lead to her being viewed a liar, untrustworthy and deceptive.

- The 'Real Julia' Gillard - one of them had to be fake, was it original Julia or real Julia
- No carbon tax but a carbon price - a rose by any other name is still a rose
- Told Kevin Rudd in his office she would not challenge, promptly walked out was told she had the numbers and rolled him the next day
- Andrew Wilkie's promise of pokie reform - barefaced broke the promise when she didn't need his vote any longer
- Was screaming misogyny in Parliament as early as 2006 & promptly appointed Slipper as Speaker who had texted filth about female genitalia - hypocrite
- 2010 Gillard says "Failure is not an option" and "no ifs, no buts" regarding 2012/13 surplus - and promptly fails
- Sheds tears at bringing in the NDIS and talks incessantly of helping the poor, the underprivileged and the battlers (her best policy of not many) but fought tooth and nail in 2010 against a $30 increase in the pension - again hypocrite.
- Bags 457 visa workers and fast tracks Labor advisor McTernan's 457 visa!

They are just off the top of my head.

You can justify them any way you want. Machinations of politics, situations beyond control, misunderstanding of context etc etc

My point is she pushed her penchant for dishonesty too far.

Was it just the carbon tax that sunk her? No.
It was a hell of a bad start, though.

Did she learn from it and subconsciously make better attempts at being more honest? Her record indicates no.

She was the most divisive PM of our era. At the end of the day even her sisterhood, 'The Handbag Hit Squad', had enough of her and deserted her when she needed them most.

Not one female resignation from cabinet after she was rolled. The ultimate and final slap in the face.

 

[Some Dude]

You can justify them any way you want. Machinations of politics, situations beyond control, misunderstanding of context etc etc

No thanks, I have no interest in defending her or any other politician regarding their core or non core honesty. As the Sunscreen song goes "Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders". I have no doubt that Gillard told lies, and that Rudd will, and I also believe that anyone who thinks Abbott et al will be different is either deluded or doesn't care about whether what they believe is true or not.

Not the point I was referring to though

- No carbon tax but a carbon price - a rose by any other name is still a rose

So If you accept that she did state before the election that she would introduce a carbon price then if there is a difference matters with regard to the claim about the "carbon tax lie", doesn't it? Tony Abbott understood there are differences.

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.

 

[springhill]

No thanks, I have no interest in defending her or any other politician regarding their core or non core honesty. As the Sunscreen song goes "Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders". I have no doubt that Gillard told lies, and that Rudd will, and I also believe that anyone who thinks Abbott et al will be different is either deluded or doesn't care about whether what they believe is true or not.

Not the point I was referring to though



So If you accept that she did state before the election that she would introduce a carbon price then if there is a difference matters with regard to the claim about the "carbon tax lie", doesn't it? Tony Abbott understood there are differences.

At the end of the day Gillard made a definitive public statement that there would be no carbon tax. Then introduced one (most likely with the Greens holding a gun to her head).
If subsequently she made comments contrary to that it shows one of 3 things....
- She is a liar
- She flip flopped and made policy on the run
- She did whatever was necessary to form government

Tony Abbott dances around the issue, referring to Howard era policy. His real test of honesty will be if they win the next election and repeal the laws. How far is he willing to go, double dissolution? If he is a man of character then although the hardest road to plow, and the ultimate gamble, it will give the people the ultimate say and take it out of the hands of the agenda driven, the dishonest and even the honest politicians.

Forget Gillard in this context, she is yesterday's hero/villain, depending on any person's view of the world and is now an irrelevancy resigned to history's scrapbook.

I am prepared to wipe the slate clean on what the 2 current leaders have said in the past, it is what Rudd and Abbott say during this campaign, once the election date is set, that is the litmus test.

 

[Some Dude]

At the end of the day Gillard made a definitive public statement that there would be no carbon tax.

Agreed. Do you likewise agree that she made definitive public statements before the election, and as part of the party policy, that a carbon pricing/trading scheme was their intention if elected?

 

[springhill]

Agreed. Do you likewise agree that she made definitive public statements before the election, and as part of the party policy, that a carbon pricing/trading scheme was their intention if elected?

Agreed.

So she either lied/flip flopped before the election or after it no matter which was the issue is cut.

 

[Some Dude]

Agreed.

So she either lied/flip flopped before the election or after it no matter which was the issue is cut.

Is that because of the nature of the initial fixed pricing period of the trading scheme which has been acknowledged as being "like a tax"? If the perception is that the difference between a pricing mechanism and a tax is viewed as a distinction without difference, then I can understand why people think that a lie about not implementing a carbon tax was made. However, even without the fixed price period, there would have been a cost associated with carbon, albeit market based pricing, which is what will happen after the fixed period.

Would you have still considered it a carbon tax lie if there was no initial fixed pricing period?

 

[drsmith]

How does it sit with this then?

Even in the dying days of the campaign, this too was lies.

Firstly, the only community that mattered was the Greens, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie. She herself after the act tried to excuse it by suggesting circumstances had changed. In that alone, there's an admission that her actions were not consistent with her words.

Secondly, the carbon tax was legislated to commence before the 2013 election, not after it as outlined in that article.

And this?

And that was after the event.

Is the nature of people's opinions on this rooted in the concept that there is no practical difference between a carbon price and a tax? If so, then it was very clearly stated before the election that she wanted to introduce a carbon price and if there is no difference then no problem.

So what really is the nature of the problem?

The nature of the problem is that she led the electorate to believe that there would be no price on carbon this term and that thus the electorate would be given some choice in a future election regarding a price on carbon before it became a reality. On this point in particular, she was still lying in the dying days of the campaign.

Overall , the difference between her words and her actions has had two primary effects,

Firstly, for Julia Gillard, this was the single act which defined her leadership and the further problems that followed. Put another way, it was for her at least, the longest political suicide note in history as described by Tony Abbott.

More importantly, for our economy, there wasn't sufficient input from as broader range of the community as there needed to be and the consequences are there for all to see in the price level relative to the rest of the world. Even Kevin Rudd wants to run away from that.

No amount of rewriting of history in a book can change the facts around this lie and that this particular approach is not the way to govern. It was a blatant exercise in governing for the party and not the country.

 

[springhill]

Is that because of the nature of the initial fixed pricing period of the trading scheme which has been acknowledged as being "like a tax"? If the perception is that the difference between a pricing mechanism and a tax is viewed as a distinction without difference, then I can understand why people think that a lie about not implementing a carbon tax was made. However, even without the fixed price period, there would have been a cost associated with carbon, albeit market based pricing, which is what will happen after the fixed period.

Would you have still considered it a carbon tax lie if there was no initial fixed pricing period?

But there was. No point talking hypotheticals after the fact.

 

[Some Dude]

Even in the dying days of the campaign, this too was lies.

Firstly, the only community that mattered was the Greens, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie. She herself after the act tried to excuse it by suggesting circumstances had changed. In that alone, there's an admission that her actions were not consistent with her words.

Secondly, the carbon tax was legislated to commence before the 2013 election, not after it as outlined in that article.

How was it a "carbon tax lie" though? I acknowledge that you don't like the policy or the participants in the parliamentary negotiations but that does not demonstrate a "carbon tax lie". As to the admission (and post election article I quoted above), that relates to the items 3 and 4 below.

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.

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.

Point 4 is less of a slam dunk because there was always going to be a cost associated with it no matter the precise mechanism but if people stated their objections in this context i.e. as Tony Abbott has previously, it would make the objections more supportable than objecting to a "carbon tax lie".

Regarding your point about the 2013 election timeframe, I suggest that your issue is with the journalist and you should read The Australian aticle again i.e. it is the journalist who states their opinion that it would not be implemented before the 2013 election in contrast to what they quote Julia Gillard saying.

- - - Updated - - -

But there was. No point talking hypotheticals after the fact.

Sorry to see you drop out of the conversation. The fixed price period is one of the more interesting aspects of the situation that lends some credence to why I understand people are angry about it, albeit it isn't as simple, politically sexy, and focus group appealing to understand as "carbon tax lie".

 

[drsmith]

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?

The electorate clearly wasn't ready for a carbon price starting on July 2012 and this breach of faith with the people is the primary reason why her prime-ministerships lies in ashes at the alter of her carbon tax.