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

We don''t care, millions of us don't care anymore as long as Gillard is out, it's game over.

She'll be lucky to make it to the next election after the budget comes out.
 
Give it up Rumpy.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see the the writing on the wall fo Labor.

Just watch todays Insiders. It was like watching a wake.

The above YouTube video clip says it all. Julia's lips are still moving, but as PM, she is the walking dead.
 
MrBurns said:
We don''t care, millions of us don't care anymore as long as Gillard is out, it's game over.

She'll be lucky to make it to the next election after the budget comes out.
Click to expand...

The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.
 
rumpole said:
The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.
Click to expand...

I think you're right but this wont be easy, anyone off the street could win against Gillard now so Tony will be hanging in there for all he's worth, at some stage the thought of actually becoming PM must be compelling.
 
Gillard.... Turnbull....

Same difference.

Replacing Labor with labor.

No thanks, it would be good bye to the 'lucky country' forever.
 
rumpole said:
The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.
Click to expand...
That's wishful thinking, but it won't matter whether it's Abbott, Turnbull, or anyone else.

Labor will still be annihilated at the next election, regardless.

How they can continue pretending they represent the people in government and sleep at night is beyond me.

As Tony Abbott said, the Green/Labor carbon tax will indeed be the longest political suicide in history.
 
rumpole said:
The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.
Click to expand...

Rumpy, the Turnbull issue has been thrashed to death here at ASF already.

He wants to price carbon and the majority of Aussie voters seem to be waking up to the con that it is. The coalition needs to provide an alternative to labor's silly carbon policy.

But dream on if it makes you happy. But Turnbull has had his go and he certainly showed his true colours.

He would be fine as treasurer, imo, but not sure if he can be trusted anymore.
 
I has often been said that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

The next election looks set to illustrate this point very well indeed. Not too many people actually want Abbott it seems, but they are determined to get rid of Gillard / Brown no matter who replaces them.

The Liberals could choose practically anyone to lead the party and still be assured of getting a decent vote. Abbott won't win as such, people don't seem massively keen on him, but Gillard / Brown seem very likely lose which makes Abbott the next PM effectively by default as the leader of the only alternative party realistically capable of forming government.

The situation for the Liberals would be much the same no matter who was in charge. They could choose anyone from Ricky Ponting to Daryl Somers as leader and still likely end up in government, such is the resentment toward Labor.
 

My thoughts exactly, in fact the win is so assured there may be a scramble for the Lib leadership before this is over, the attraction of becoming PM with no effort will be very attractive to a few Libs.
 
I was against the nanny thing when he first mentioned it, but on further thought if it were to be a reallocation of the same funding it's probably a good idea for people who for whatever reason do not want to trundle the kid to a childcare centre.
i.e. perhaps each family qualifying for child care could be given the appropriate voucher for total value of child care due to them and they could then choose whether to spend it on institutionalised child care or hire a part time nanny (or full time nanny and pay the difference.)
I like this idea because it offers the choice and responsibility back to the parent.
They would need to provide receipts for the care actually being delivered and these would have to be cross checked to avoid them just doing a shonky deal with someone on the nanny option.

rumpole said:
The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.
Click to expand...

+1. Rumpole you haven't been around here long enough to read all the discussion about Turnbull.
As Sails has said, he had his go and he failed dismally. He is all about Malcolm Turnbull and is not a true Liberal.
Voters do not want the carbon tax, the ETS, or any other measure on climate change as long as the majority of the rest of the world, and certainly our competitors, are not doing likewise.
Why on earth would they want Mr Turnbull who just agrees with Gillard & Co re the carbon tax?
Give me a break!

Tony Abbott has turned around the Libs' fortunes as an effective opposition leader and - unless Peter Costello were to put his hand up - he will lead the Coalition to the next election.
 

Actually, I was thinking more about this nanny thing after hearing it on the Bolt report this morning and it would probably appeal to those who have several young children with both parents working. I know (as a grandparent) how much effort goes into getting young children ready for day care, packing lunches, spare clothes, etc and that's without working to a time deadline for the parent to get to work. For those with more than one young child, it would imagine it would be something of a nightmare to get them all to child care. Often young children don't want to go, so that makes the task much more difficult.

If a nanny comes into the home, she/he could make lunches for the children, changes of clothes are readily available and it is likely the nanny would do a few other useful things to help out while they are there (even if only for the children). It seems there would be much less preparation required for a nanny to come into the home to care for the children as opposed to taking them out.

If both parents are working, then they are both paying tax. I guess this is how it would be funded. If the second parent doesn't work, then the family would possibly get more tax benefits and the government would also be down on tax revenue.

It might not be such a silly plan after all and, as Julia said, it would give working parents more choices. And isn't it only being costed at this stage?
 
sails said:
Actually, I was thinking more about this nanny thing after hearing it on the Bolt report this morning and it would probably appeal to those who have several young children with both parents working.
Click to expand...

And those not working. I knew a guy who was very well off and would take a few months off each year to go touring in Europe with his wife and two young kids. Always took a nanny along to handle the kids. Obviously he doesn't need the money, but he'd still jump at any handout.

How did we end up on this on the carbon tax thread?
 
"It might not be such a silly plan after all and, as Julia said, it would give working parents more choices. "
Click to expand...

Good Lord, and you are the people that drone on about "individual responsibility" and now you want governments to make it easier for you.

If people can't afford to have children without draining the public purse then they shouldn't have them. Family support should be gradually withdrawn so that people can decide whether they have the means themselves to finance their children without governments making the choices for them.
 
I couldn't agree more. However, apparently this is now an old fashioned view and the provision of childcare by the taxpayer is the done thing. Given that, looking at alternative methods of providing this - as Mr Abbott is apparently doing - is pretty sensible. And yes, Sails, Mr Abbott has simply asked at this stage that the Productivity Commission take a look at the idea.

rumpole said:
Showing your colours eh Julia ?

Click to expand...
Unashamedly, rumpole. I'll never feel a need to conceal my philosophical conviction of a (small 'l') liberal approach, with its encouragement of individuals to take personal responsibility for their own outcomes, in contrast to the socialist control of the population.
 
Turnbull is arguably most intellectually gifted MP in Canberra today and because he represented a brand of political values that is not found in either of the major political forces in this country today - liberalism with a small 'l'.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that, that's why I like him. He can see through the ideological cr@p and use an evidence based approach to problem solving. If it works, do it, it doesn't matter if it's not in the Party Commandments.

That's the sort of people we need in government, not ones slavishly shackled to archaic ideologies.
 
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...