Labor's carbon tax lie

[Some Dude]

Well, 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.

You have stated such several times and I believe it would be a fools errand to even vaguely attempt to alter your opinion about such things.

As to the statements listed above in my previous post, would you accept any of them as statements of fact?

 

[drsmith]

You have stated such several times and I believe it would be a fools errand to even vaguely attempt to alter your opinion about such things.

As to the statements listed above in my previous post, would you accept any of them as statements of fact?

You can scratch through the ashes as much as you like.

You're not going to find much.

 

[Some Dude]

You can scratch through the ashes as much as you like.

You're not going to find much.

Except the irony of most thread titles

 

[drsmith]

Except the irony of most thread titles

Before entering this discussion, did you read the first post in this thread ?

 

[Some Dude]

Before entering this discussion, did you read the first post in this thread ?

The one were Andrew Bolt quoted one TV interview to label someone a fabriactor while barely acknowledging the large headline in the Australian, and not acknowledging point 1 in my statements of fact that I attempted to gain common ground with you on?

If so, then yes. If not, then which one in particular are you referring to?

Edit: Apologies, misread... I thought you meant first in this sub-thread that we have been having.

Ok, read the very first post. Your point?

 

[wayneL]

Well guys, we can get bogged down in minutia as much as you like, the fact remains, the carbon tax is wrong for Australia economically, wrong on scientific grounds, and was a disaster politcally.

Julia paid the price for it... but I suggest getting tossed out on your ear, betrayed by your closest confidants and betrayed by the poisonous sisterhood no less, is a light penalty for such economic treason.

 

[Some Dude]

Well guys, we can get bogged down in minutia as much as you like, the fact remains, the carbon tax is wrong for Australia economically, wrong on scientific grounds, and was a disaster politcally.

Julia paid the price for it... but I suggest getting tossed out on your ear, betrayed by your closest confidants and betrayed by the poisonous sisterhood no less, is a light penalty for such economic treason.

If it is such minutia then why do people create 117 page threads about them?

 

[wayneL]

If it is such minutia then why do people create 117 page threads about them?

The thread is a broad concept. Julia was not honest and created the impression she was anti-carbon tax.

It is the political and scientific deceipt, and the economic idiocy which people object to, not the fine print.

 

[Some Dude]

The thread is a broad concept. Julia was not honest and created the impression she was anti-carbon tax.

Absolutely. Are you able to acknowledge that at the time there was a definite and recognised difference for policy makers on all sides between a carbon tax and a carbon pricing scheme (i.e. market based)?

If so then she wasn't dishonest about communicating the impression that she was anti-carbon tax. If not then why did people like Tony Abbott et al argue for a carbon tax instead of carbon pricing?

It is the political and scientific deceipt, and the economic idiocy which people object to, not the fine print.

I genuinely believe there are two distinct but important issues here. I'm agreeing with you that the second round of questions is the more important set but when establishing common ground on something as harmless of the recognised distinction between a carbon tax and carbon pricing is virtually impossible or ignored, then those later topics are doomed to be so much more difficult. The devil as they say is usually in the details.

Something for which if more people in the general public were switched on about the difference between a carbon tax and a carbon price, then someone would have asked the questions that you probably wish had been asked before the election. i.e. "Given the difference between a tax and a pricing scheme, do you reject both?"

In fact, if I were you guys, I would be wondering why Tony Abbott didn't ask that question given that he knew very well the difference.

 

[wayneL]

I don't acknowledge anything except that it is ludicrous that carbon dioxide should be priced or taxed on the basis of purported MMCC.

 

[drsmith]

The one were Andrew Bolt quoted one TV interview to label someone a fabriactor while barely acknowledging the large headline in the Australian, and not acknowledging point 1 in my statements of fact that I attempted to gain common ground with you on?

In attempting to reach a common ground, perhaps we can start here.

Does the quoted text from that interview differ in any meaningful way differ from the audio in the linked Youtube clip ?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=116&p=781788&viewfull=1#post781788

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.

Secondly, from the above Australian article to which you refer, on what basis do you make the distinction between information provided by Labor to the journalist and journalistic interpretation ?

 

[Some Dude]

In attempting to reach a common ground, perhaps we can start here.

Does the quoted text from that interview differ in any meaningful way differ from the audio in the linked Youtube clip ?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=116&p=781788&viewfull=1#post781788

Which quoted text from that interview are you referring to? Your extract? The Australian? Andrew Bolt's extract? I'm not trying to be difficult here, just that you may have meant one of several things.

Edit: I am assuming you are referring to Walsh's text and the TV interview? Yes, the TV interview does not refer to the carbon pricing/market mechanism. Your point?

Secondly, from the above Australian article to which you refer, on what basis do you make the distinction between information provided by Labor to the journalist and journalistic interpretation ?

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.

Gillard in Bold, journalist underlined.

Are you able to acknowledge that at the time (and still now) there was a definite and recognised difference for policy makers on all sides between a carbon tax and a carbon pricing scheme (i.e. market based)?

 

[drsmith]

Which quoted text from that interview are you referring to? Your extract? The Australian? Andrew Bolt's extract? I'm not trying to be difficult here, just that you may have meant one of several things.

Edit: I am assuming you are referring to Walsh's text and the TV interview? Yes, the TV interview does not refer to the carbon pricing/market mechanism. Your point?

What was quoted in the book (as reported in the Fairfax article) was not what she said at the time.

Gillard in Bold, journalist underlined.

Are you trying to make a distinction between what is in quotes and what isn't ?

Regardless of the quotes, the statement about the timing has clearly been presented as something upon which he has been briefed. How otherwise can he draw such a conclusion ?

Are you able to acknowledge that at the time (and still now) there was a definite and recognised difference for policy makers on all sides between a carbon tax and a carbon pricing scheme (i.e. market based)?

Regardless of that, this government led the electorate to believe that we would not be paying a price on carbon this term. In an earlier response, you asked what the point of my reference to the first post of this thread was.

Strip away the waffle and it's this,

KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. You would say an ETS.

Is there any likelihood of a second Gillard Government introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme within your next term?

WAYNE SWAN: We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.
We have to go back to the community and work out a way in which we can put a cap on carbon pollution.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Okay...

That's at least what the government wanted the electorate to believe.

 

[Some Dude]

Gillard in Bold, journalist underlined.

To reinforce the point I am making with regard to who is saying and who is interpreting, later in the article:

She said a shift to some integration in government and private school funding was a "possibility". Aware of the explosive political nature of this exercise, Ms Gillard insisted Labor would legislate the new policy to begin from January 2014 - after the next term.

In that case there is very little room for ambiguity.

Edit: Just saw your new post, sorry for the out of order-ness.

 

[drsmith]

To reinforce the point I am making with regard to who is saying and who is interpreting, later in the article:



In that case there is very little room for ambiguity.

Edit: Just saw your new post, sorry for the out of order-ness.

:bier:

 

[Some Dude]

What was quoted in the book (as reported in the Fairfax article) was not what she said at the time.

Was the Channel 10 TV segment the only source for Walsh at the time? Obviously the Australian demonstrates that it wasn't and unless we have some clarification from the author about where she drew her information or quotes, then we don't know whether there are other sources, including discussions, that were had.

Are you trying to make a distinction between what is in quotes and what isn't ?

I'm noting that the assertion:

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

Is not supported by a direct quote or comment from Julia Gillard. As such, your inclusion of it in the "lie" is problematic unless you can clarify with the journalist that Julia Gillard did state such. As I note in my out of sequence post, there was almost no ambiguity about the other date in the article.

Regardless of the quotes, the statement about the timing has clearly been presented as something upon which he has been briefed. How otherwise can he draw such a conclusion ?

A good question but until you put it to him, you don't know do you? Are you saying it is impossible for him to have drawn an assumption or inference based on factors other than what Julia Gillard directly said?

Regardless of that, this government led the electorate to believe that they would not be paying a price on carbon this term. In an earlier response, you asked what the point of my reference to the first post of this thread was.

You can't acknowledge that the difference between a carbon tax and a carbon price? If you maintain this, please explain why Tony Abbott understood the difference between the two such that he asserted a carbon tax was preferable to a carbon pricing mechanism?

As for the first thread and your last point.

Strip away the waffle and it's this,

That's at least what the government wanted the electorate to believe.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. You would say an ETS.

Is there any likelihood of a second Gillard Government introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme within your next term?

WAYNE SWAN: Kerry, We've made our position absolutely clear. I know they're running a scare campaign that a carbon tax is coming because I saw their ads in North Queensland when I was there last night.

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are going to go out and achieve community consensus, which was fractured by Mr Hockey and the Liberals when they voted down the ETS. That is where the ETS is, it's voted down, it's voted down. We have to go back to the community and proceed how we go from here, thanks to Mr Hockey.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Okay. Now, brief response Mr Hockey.

JOE HOCKEY: What was that? Was that yes or no? That was just... The fundamental question is, are you going to rule out a carbon tax in the next term of the Government - yes or no?

WAYNE SWAN: We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.
We have to go back to the community and work out a way in which we can put a cap on carbon pollution.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Okay...

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.

Something I am also very curious about is why Joe Hockey did not likewise ask the question sans "carbon tax" as Kerry did?

 

[drsmith]

In the broader context, I think had Julia Gillard legislated a carbon price (in whatever form) in this term from Jan 1 2014 and then articulated the case over the remainder of this term, the judgement her prime-ministership could well have been very different to what has happened. She may not have won the day, but it is far less likely that she would have been sacked as PM by her own party. This though was not in her nature as we would see on a repeated basis.

We would have also likely had a far more economically rational debate in terms of any price for carbon dioxide and the electorate would have still had a the ultimate say as to whether or not it went ahead if the Opposition still opposed it.

 

[drsmith]

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.

 

[Smurf1976]

Wholesale electricity prices per MWh in 2012-13 with the carbon tax as compared to the previous financial year with no carbon tax.

NSW = $55.10 (previous year $29.67)

Vic = $57.44 (previous year $27.28)

Qld = $67.02 (previous year $29.07)

SA = $69.75 (previous year $30.28)

Tas = $48.30 (previous year $32.58)

 

[Julia]

That seems very much more than the government has been telling us in terms of the effect of the carbon price, Smurf. Are they manipulating the figures?