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

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new

Smurph, you are magic.

In W.A, two more coal units are to be shut down in 2015. lol

It won't be long before everyone is pi$$ing their pants with the cost of electricity.

You get what you wish for, hope you like it.lol,lol

Best of luck with Kev, talking up manufacturing, unless that is weaving baskets, what a dick.
 

I think you are justified in your perception and I agree with your analysis. As I stated earlier to springhill, I am not defending Julia Gillard here because I believe that her government deserved to lose because of how issues like this were handled. Not because I necessarily disagree with the policy or goal but because they did not engage with people more, have the robust policy discussions, disarm the advertising slogans, and give people much more time to analyse and debate. The same occurred with many topics e.g. public funding for political parties by both parties. Instead of having the public discussion and making the case, both sides chose to simply hide in the dark corners until the whole situation descended into farce.

The same will happen to Tony Abbott if he does not learn the lessons as well i.e. if he does not effectively engage in discussions such that people will be able to unfairly apply "work choices" as an advertising slogan, and not giving people enough detail or time to review and analyse on policy that will behe is proposing.

I think we deserve, and should demand, better in our public discussions about policy from our media and politicians in content detail and time to review. We deserve more than advertisement slogans that do not contain the daily requirement of epistemological fibre.

drsmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.


Understood and thanks for treating me with respect during our discussion. It's appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • 1_kissthumb_16x9-408x264.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 196

He's just as bad - he voted for it go through knowing there was no mandate and now he wants to swap it for an ETS which could go higher to $38 in a few years. With treasury usually underestimating these sort of figures, reality could see it much higher still.

Hopefully Rudd doesn't get his mandate to take us into an ETS.
 
Meanwhile public opinion is against coal, gas and nuclear. It's about evenly split so far as hydro is concerned and there is majority support for wind and solar.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-women-prefer-solar-old-men-like-nuclear-48452

The problem, of course, is that if I conducted a similar poll about having an economical supply of electricity then I expect there would be fairly strong support. Having an economical, reliable supply of electricity without coal or gas and some hydro is problematic however.....

The public has one thing right though and that's nuclear. It's one of the silliest ideas around so far as Australia's energy supply is concerned. Why would a country which exports huge amounts of coal and gas, has vast unused reserves of lower grade non-exportable coal, plenty of wind, more sun than most and significant hydro bother using something as expensive and difficult as nuclear? It's "me too" at its' worst - nuclear makes sense in countries with limited resources due to the huge energy density of uranium but it doesn't make sense when you have cheaper and inherently safer energy resources on your doorstep.
 


We can only hope, Drsmith...
 
Both the Greens and Labor have made entirely clear that - however strongly the Coalition wins the election - they will not support the abolition of the carbon tax.

How do you all feel about a double dissolution election, because that's what will have to happen?

Imo the electorate is already exhausted by this long campaign between two sides about whom no one is actually enthusiastic. To present us with the obligation to endure yet another campaign for yet another damn election would probably be enough to make people so angry as to distort their voting.
 

I agree that people are so sick of this drawn out election that they will not relish a DD. Perhaps that is what Abbott is hoping for. That those sitting on the fence will realise that they must give Abbott a majority in both houses or risk going to the polls again. If you are indifferent to who wins based on their policies, the potential of a DD might be enough to sway you to the Abbott side purely to maintain your sanity.

One other point. Although I hate when politicians put things in concrete with no room for pragmatic compromise (Abbott in this case suggesting a DD if the CP removal is blocked in the senate, when there may be other options such as perhaps lowering the carbon price to an insignificant level), Rudd also appearing to be unwilling to compromise on this issue may work in Abbott's favour. When Labor are in turmoil after they get defeated badly on Saturday, there will be lots of talk about a new beginning and listening to what the people are telling them. The carbon tax will obviously be seen as one issue where they went badly wrong and for a myriad of reasons they will not want Rudd as leader. If Rudd continues to suggest Labor will block the abolition of the CT in the upper house, that may be a catalyst for the party to remove him and install a new leader who "hears" what the electorate are saying.
 
If there was a double dissolution ,at least we may have a conversation about global warming.
 
chiff said:
If there was a double dissolution ,at least we may have a conversation about global warming.
Click to expand...

What Global Warming. The Globe is cooling. The global temperature has remained the same for 16 years. In fact it has been quoted that we could even be entering into a mini ice age.

If there is a change of government, and that looks more likely every day, Rudd is becoming wedged on the abolition of the carbon tax (oops, carbon price) as Abott will have a mandate to do what he says.

As the link from the Australian this morning states, Rudd is becoming trapped. If Rudd digs in on this carbon tax and blocks it in the senate with the Greens, it may well do both the Greens and Labor more harm if there is a double disillusion of parliament. But then again, Rudd might not be around after the 7th September.

And let us not forget Gillards QUOTE " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD". This is still very fresh in voters minds and will continue to come into play.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-on-carbon-price/story-e6frg74x-1226710060384
 
Well then we should have a conversation about global cooling.
Is the Australian newspaper a reliable reference?
I gave up reading newspaper opinion pieces along time ago.In fact I would have bought a handful of newspapers in the last fifteen years.Keeps one more objective when one does not feed ones bias with the self interest of others.And now they want to charge a fee for that tosh.
 
I think Rudd tried to show a bit of trickery when he stated a few weeks ago that he would scrap the Carbon Tax and now he says he will oppose it in the senate with the Greens if Abbott tries to scarp it after Coalitition wins the election.

The man along with the Greens must be raving lunatics. They don't seem to understand Abbott has a mandate to eliminate this sutpid tax for the benefit of working families both with jobs and the cost of living. After all the tax has done b*gger all to have any affect on "CLIMATE CHANGE".

Do the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition want a double disolution???? I don't think so.

Maybe if Rudd loses his seat the Labor Party might just change their minds and let it all pass though the senate.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ck-on-kevin-rudd/story-e6frg75f-1226710099565
 
I would like Labor to press Abbott into a DD, BTW minor parties usually win from DD's major parties lose ground as the electorate gets frustrated with them as expressed here.

Serving up a bit of chaos arla Abbott has done in opposition would be lovely to see.

Convention is if Abbott has no control over the Senate then his mandate is only to introduce legislation not that opposition parties have to pass it in the Senate the house of review.
 
As the OP subject line says, I'll remember Gillards QUOTE (thanks noco) "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD" for a very long time. Yes, there are others but this one's a classic IMHO.

Re. Climate Change. The climate changes daily even hourly it's called weather FFS. How dare these pollies through it into my face and tell me, that, collectively we should be doing something about this abhorent climate change and then start charging me for it. Jeez I wish I could charge them for all the Carbon Emmisions coming from their mouths, sheesh!

Call it what is really is, pollution control
 
chiff said:
I gave up reading newspaper opinion pieces along time ago.In fact I would have bought a handful of newspapers in the last fifteen years.Keeps one more objective
Click to expand...

Burying your head in the sand may keep you ignorant, but it certainly does not make you objective.:shake:
 
Craton said:
Call it what is really is, pollution control
Click to expand...
The carbon tax is more of an economic policy than an environmental one in practice.

It shifts both economic wealth and CO2 emissions from one country to another, with little if any change in the overall outcome in both cases. That shift is from Australia to overseas, particularly China and to some extent others including the USA.

There is also a transfer of wealth between the Australian states, with Tas the largest winner on a per capita basis and SA also possibly benefiting (though this one is a bit fuzzy). It's harder to pinpoint who the biggest losers would be, but NSW is likely at the top of the list followed by Vic. Apart from the gains to Tas it's a bit hard to pinpoint it overall, but there is a redistribution of wealth between states. Somewhat ironically, the benefits to Tas arise primarily from big hydro-electric dams, previous opposition to which lead to the formation of what is now the Greens. Oh the irony.......
 
This is where the Greens don't give a rats about us as a sovereign nation.
 
Smurf1976 said:
The carbon tax is more of an economic policy than an environmental one in practice.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I think all policies have an economic consideration, at least as a foundation point and oft times to the detriment of everything else.

Now riddle me this, we are carbon based life forms are we not? So the CT is a tax on you and me no? Yep, just another way of raising revenue and that's the main game really isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...