Labor's carbon tax lie

[Calliope]

Calliope, do you not agree though, if one indy defected there would have to be an election because the government would not be able to function.

Yes. If the defection of one or more of these characters could result in a new election that would be a smart move. An election would not only remove Labor, but probably Oakeshotte and Wilkie also. That makes their defection unlikely, though they might stand a better chance if they were in the LNP camp

But, of course, they could never be trusted. Turncoats can't change their spots.

 

[drsmith]

None of Windsor/Oakshott/Wilkie will defect to the Coalition.

Windsor backs the NBN and Oakshott's backing of a carbon tax is second only to him being front and centre in the political limelight. As for Wilkie backing the Coalition, that's not even worthy of further comment.

The best that can be hoped for is that Labor changes leaders and Tony Windsor withdraws his support to retire into the sunset.

 

[drsmith]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htm

I need to get my eyes checked.

On second thought, who's he kidding ?

 

[Julia]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htm

I need to get my eyes checked.

On second thought, who's he kidding ?

What on earth is going on here? Andrew Wilkie supporting Tony Abbott? How bizarre.
Is Mr Wilkie laying the groundwork for a defection from his support for Labor?

I can't see his demands on pokies reform getting through both houses unless it's modified to the point that it won't meet his criteria.
So then he would have to stick with his vehemently stated withdrawal of support for the Gillard government if she fails to fulfil her promise on the pokies.

What complicated games they are all playing.

 

[noco]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htm

I need to get my eyes checked.

On second thought, who's he kidding ?

So after reading the above link, perhaps Wilkie might just be the circuit breaker to force an election by the end of the year!!!

We might even see Tony Abbott as Prime Minister by Xmas 2011.

 

[Logique]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htmI need to get my eyes checked. On second thought, who's he kidding ?

This person, who seemingly has a very patchy memory of his training days at Duntroon, was employed by our Government as an analyst.

While I'm at it, today on Anzac Day - I can do without the hourly news lecture from the PM on '..mateship and courage..'

 

[Julia]

While I'm at it, today on Anzac Day - I can do without the hourly news lecture from the PM on '..mateship and courage..'

Yes, she's so predictably banal. And how the voice drones.

 

[Calliope]

Paul Sheehan opposes the carbon tax with good reason;

1. There is no mandate for the carbon tax. It was expressly singled out by Gillard during the last election as a no-go, which helped save her government.
2. The tax will have almost zero effect on global carbon dioxide emissions.
3. It is a tax on everything, as higher energy costs flow through the economy.
4. It is regressive, harming households and small businesses on tight budgets.
5. It is a massive exercise in tax churning.
6. It does not address the structural inefficiencies in the energy sector.
7. It is a prelude to a emissions trading scheme, a derivatives market.
8. Large-scale carbon trading is inherently vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and speculation, as seen in Europe.
9. It will introduce a new layer of complexity to the economy.
10. It ignores significant energy savings possible without a punitive tax.
11. The federal government has an abysmal record in delivering large-scale interventions.
12. Australia contributes about 1.5 per cent of global carbon emissions and any local measures will be irrelevant without a global carbon tax regime.
13. It will not introduce certainty to energy pricing as promised.
14. Solar and wind power generation are prohibitively expensive and cannot meet baseload power needs.
15. The tax represents a massive transfer of wealth and power to the bureaucratic class which benefits most from a new labyrinth of compliance and compulsion.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...llard-whole-20110424-1dstv.html#ixzz1KUqRlfA0

 

[medicowallet]

Paul Sheehan opposes the carbon tax with good reason;

The tide has definitely turned.

I don't believe that man is causing dangerous AGW.

However point 11 is a real selling point for the Liberals. If they focus on this, I think that they will continue to keep the memories of poor prior and current management in the minds of all.

 

[sptrawler]

It reminds me of the introduction of the petrol excise tax to be spent on oil exploration hahaha. Now the carbon tax to be used to reduce carbon emissions, give me a break, is that a rain forrest behind my ears.
Why is it when a government gets in they think they have a mandate to force feed people with excrement. It's not that I don't like $......t sandwiches, I just don't like the taste of bread, its not carbon neutral.

 

[Julia]

However point 11 is a real selling point for the Liberals. If they focus on this, I think that they will continue to keep the memories of poor prior and current management in the minds of all.

Agree (Point 11 being that the current government has an abysmal record on delivering any program at all).

Given how woefully they failed with something that should have been as simple as the pink batts scheme, what huge potential there is for disastrous failure in something as complex as the carbon tax.

If Tony Abbott focuses on this, rather than getting too involved in the realities or otherwise of anthropogenic climate change, he can hammer home an unassailable point. No one can contradict this.

If he does this, rather than get sidetracked into his own frequent changes of philosophy re climate change, he'd have to be pretty likely to win over any who are wavering about this potentially disastrous tax.

 

[drsmith]

Tim Flannery's Green majority view of the carbon tax.

Flannery claims in his Canadian interview that “a solid 40 per cent” of Australians support action on climate.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/435_days_until_labor/

 

[sptrawler]

He needs to get off the hooch or start reading this forum. At least here you get a balanced truthfull representation of public opinion.

 

[drsmith]

He needs to get off the hooch or start reading this forum. At least here you get a balanced truthfull representation of public opinion.

By the look of him, he could start with a healthier diet and some exercise.

On ya bike Tim. Gaia will love you for it.

 

[sptrawler]

Lets get serious.
How is the Government going to control inflation with spiralling cost of living, rising interest rates, Aust dollar increasing putting pressure on local retailers(therefore jobs), housing values dropping, and the probability of higher interest rates.
Well lets put a tax on carbon i.e fuel( trucks transporting everything) Power stations (up goes power costs again), food (trucks transport it and electricity grows it, pumps etc).

 

[MACCA350]

Tim Flannery's Green majority view of the carbon tax.

Flannery claims in his Canadian interview that “a solid 40 per cent” of Australians support action on climate.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/435_days_until_labor/

What a twit, so he accepts that 60 per cent of Australians DO NOT support action on climate...........there's you're mandate........a mandate to drop the carbon tax

Cheers

 

[Logique]

Paul Sheehan opposes the carbon tax with good reason;
1. ...to... 15.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...llard-whole-20110424-1dstv.html#ixzz1KUqRlfA0

That's a first class summary C., and bookmarked. Points 9, extra layer of complexity, and 15, transfers wealth and power, need more attention in the discussion.

As for High Priest Flannery - that's 40% and sinking fast mate. Tim's next ABC travel series will be 'One Man in a Boat'.

 

[Smurf1976]

There's a big difference between 40% of Australians "supporting action on climate" versus them "supporting a carbon tax".

It's like saying that the vast majority of Australians would (presumably) support reducing the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents. But that doesn't necessarily mean they would support a national speed limit of 10 km/h and paying a tax every time you cross the road.

 

[drsmith]

I'd like to see something outside the Murdoch press to confirm, but it would seem the carbon tax is looking more lonely by the minute.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-compensation/comments-fn59niix-1226045899703

 

[Logique]

I'd like to see something outside the Murdoch press to confirm, but it would seem the carbon tax is looking more lonely by the minute.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-compensation/comments-fn59niix-1226045899703

One blogger sums up my thoughts (minus the xenophobia bit)

Kloppers has a lot to say about Auastralian politics for a foreigner. Too bad it's so confusing. Last year he was for the carbon tax and the mining tax and now he's against the carbon tax but still for the mining tax seeing he got to frame the legislation to suit his company and the other large miners.