The Gillard Government

[Knobby22]

Yea, yea. You should stop reading those rags Calliope. A story based on a picture??

 

[Calliope]

The Greens are a far bigger danger to the Coalition than Labor. To support any motion of the Greens is abhorrent. Better to abstain.

 

[sptrawler]

The Greens are a far bigger danger to the Coalition than Labor. To support any motion of the Greens is abhorrent. Better to abstain.

It's hard to abstain from voting on an issue you have been the major antagonist against . It would give Labor a free kick, to say the Coalition are just anti everything and when they are asked to put up they just shut up.

 

[Calliope]

Yea, yea. You should stop reading those rags Calliope. A story based on a picture??

Yea, Yea. This is the spin your favorite rag puts on it;

Mr Rudd told reporters he was not plotting a return to the leadership but was just trying to stop Mr Abbott trying to become prime minister. He said Mr Abbott running the nation would ''not be in the community's interest'.
''My aspiration is to become one day, maybe, one of Australia's better - probably not the best - foreign minister. I enjoy the job very much. I'm able to achieve some things in it and that's where my heart and soul lies in terms of my own future.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/plot...ign-to-rudd-20110616-1g63q.html#ixzz1PUPbrSYA

 

[Julia]

The Greens are a far bigger danger to the Coalition than Labor. To support any motion of the Greens is abhorrent. Better to abstain.

Not sure about abstaining. The point I was trying to make was to do with the irony of the motion being carried by the unanimity of the Greens and the Coalition when they object to the Malaysia Solution for completely different reasons,i.e. The Greens because they want to see all asylum seekers immediately admitted to live in the Australian community, and the Coalition because they (sensibly) want to use Nauru.

As Chris Bowen imo correctly observed, they are diametrically opposed on this issue.

On a more amusing note, did anyone hear the Prime Minister misuse the language once again? I heard it on "PM" last night and laughed. We're all familiar with the expression "high dudgeon" meaning intense indignation. Ms Gillard said "high dungeon"!
Somewhat of an oxymoron, one might think.

Here's the context:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dungeon-indeed/story-e6frgdk6-1226076653298

 

[joea]

I reckon that the "boiler room in Canberra" is getting to such a high pressure, that the saftey valve is ready to blow. Generally the safety should blow off before the whole boiler blows up.
joea

 

[drsmith]

Kevin Rudd's sitting on the safety valve and hoping the roof blows off.

 

[Calliope]

On a more amusing note, did anyone hear the Prime Minister misuse the language once again? I heard it on "PM" last night and laughed. We're all familiar with the expression "high dudgeon" meaning intense indignation. Ms Gillard said "high dungeon"!
Somewhat of an oxymoron, one might think.

And this is the woman who sets herself up as a great supporter of education. How can a woman with two degrees be so uneducated. This from her maiden speech may explain:

My passion for education is not only the product of my own personal experience; it is the result of having campaigned on these very issues as a university student...

I will not pretend that the antics of a bunch of university students had much relevance to real working people, but we were always conscious that we were part of a wider movement to create a fairer society and give others the opportunities we were fortunate enough to have. We always understood the value of working collectively, of unionism. While experience in the student movement inspired those on the other side of the House to dedicate themselves to the destruction of unionism, it inspired us to work with and for unions. It inspired me to spend eight years as an industrial lawyer defending trade unions and working people. In this place, I will remain fiercely committed to working with unions and to working for fair industrial laws.

 

[drsmith]

Kevin Rudd not happy about questioning on a range of foreign policy issues.

Listen from about 9:15 to about 9:40.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/06/17/3246154.htm

No sympathy from the interviewer judging by the expression on her face.

 

[springhill]

Sophie Mirabella, Member for Indi, asks several excellent question of Peter Garrett.

Mrs MIRABELLA: Minister, it was confirmed at estimates that the industry department is doing a range of work on carbon tax and its impact on industry. In that context can you confirm the carbon tax will only be applied to fewer than 1,000 emitters? Can you guarantee it will not be applied to other businesses or other industries? On what basis is the government providing 52 per cent compensation to households and 46 per cent to industry under the carbon tax? Given that the CPRS as it started was supposed to provide only around 41 per cent to households, how much of a decline in compensation from that scheme would a level of 46 per cent represent for Australian industry? Isn't this just purely a front for an exercise in wealth redistribution? What detail can you provide industry about the proportion by which the tax will rise and what the level of compensation change will be beyond year 1? Has the government set a ceiling price beyond which the carbon tax will not escalate? If so, what is that?

Could you also please inform the House if either of these two statements is wrong. The first one is that every dollar that is raised by the payment of a carbon price by the companies that are emitting large amounts of pollution will be used towards supporting households. The second comment is that the carbon plan which we are now developing will involve additional support for manufacturing. Has the government requested briefings from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research or any other government agency about the steel industry's legal action against the EU in that jurisdiction over the implementation of its ETS? If so, which agencies and on what dates? Has any consideration being given to the implications for Australia? If so, what are these implications?

What consultation and work has the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the government more generally done on border tariff arrangements for the carbon tax? Are there any considerations for the introduction of border tariffs or any like actions with regard to the introduction of a carbon tax?

Of which he FAILS to answer. Is there any guarantee this won't expand?

Mr GARRETT: I thank the member for her questions. On the question of a carbon tax generally, the government has been very clear about the process which is now underway to determine the most appropriate way of pricing carbon in the Australian economy. The member will be aware that there is a climate change committee that is involved in consultation and discussion with the government and that the government will bring forward that proposal once the processes for consultation have been concluded. The member will also be aware that there has been significant consultation with industry, and that has been the hallmark of the government's approach to delivering a price on carbon. Those consultations are varied and diverse but I can assure the member that consultation with industry has always been and will remain one of the important principles that this government follows in relation to a reform of this kind. I will refer now to a couple of the specific questions that the member put to me, which I will take on notice. The questions relate to whether or not there has been any research, consultation or interaction on the question of border tariffs. I might have slightly paraphrased the question that was put to me by the member, but it is on the record. We will take that particular question on notice. Again, I think it is appropriate to take on notice the question of whether or not there have been any briefings or advices sought in relation to legal action being taken in respect of the steel industry and issues around them more generally.

On the question of whether or not the government has come to a view about a ceiling price for the carbon tax, again, I refer the member to both my earlier comments in answer to her question and also to the comments made by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, by the Prime Minister, by the Treasurer and by others on numerous occasions, including in question time, pointing out the processes that are underway and the principles that underpin the government's approach on climate change.

I will make one observation to conclude this answer, and it is simply this: many businesses agree that a price on carbon is the most efficient way to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most climate scientists are unanimous in agreeing that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to stabilise the climate so that we do not suffer the expensive impacts of dangerous climate change. The long-term sustainable prosperity of our nation, including in respect of our industrial base, our innovation, our research, our development of new technologies and industries and the like, is very much linked to our capacity to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the most cost-effective way for us to do that is to have a price on carbon. Economists are of a single view about that. Members of the party of the member opposite are of a single view about that. And, in order to have a price on carbon introduced into the Australian economy we need to agree on the way in which that particular scheme will be brought forward.

I am very confident that the process of consultation and negotiation that is underway, not only with industry but with all of the other players in this substantial reform, is being conducted in a way that enables the government to have a clear view about the most effective way for us to introduce this important reform. For those of us who are genuinely interested in innovation and genuinely interested in building a low-carbon economy, the introduction of a carbon price is a much needed element.

 

[Calliope]

Kevin Rudd not happy about questioning on a range of foreign policy issues.

Listen from about 9:15 to about 9:40.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/06/17/3246154.htm

No sympathy from the interviewer judging by the expression on her face.

Rudd, after sleeping rough for a night, said he had a "passion for homelessness." Perhaps another apology will fix that. O)r maybe it's just another "moral challenge" and can be easily forgotten.

 

[IFocus]

Rudd, after sleeping rough for a night, said he had a "passion for homelessness." Perhaps another apology will fix that. O)r maybe it's just another "moral challenge" and can be easily forgotten.

This thing about people sleeping out to draw attention really gets up my goat. Its the biggest load of absolute manure ever as pointed out by Hewson the other night.

The political / public focus on a few 1000 asulym seekers and money spent on que jumpers while every night 100,000 plus Australians dont have a roof over there heads.

Many are women with kids fleeing domestic violence situations that cannot find accommodation. The best Abbott, Rudd and co is to sleep out.

 

[Julia]

Agree absolutely. Such tokenistic gestures are actually an insult to the homeless, imo.
Patronising in the extreme.

 

[sails]

Agree absolutely. Such tokenistic gestures are actually an insult to the homeless, imo.
Patronising in the extreme.

I hadn't heard about it and so googled for news. It seems it is an annual charity event organised by St Vincent de Paul and there were many others who spent the night on the streets for this charity event. Both Abbott and Rudd raised over $7,000 each.

Maybe it's not so bad for our leaders to have experienced what many homeless people experience. Perhaps it will help them formulate better policies where the homeless can be helped.

From Yahoo.com: Australia CEOs sleep rough for charity

 

[sptrawler]

It may make them realise the asylum seekers don't have too much to complain about with regard accomodation standards.

 

[drsmith]

I think the engine room just flooded.

The Herald/Nielsen poll, taken this week and published today, shows Labor's primary vote at 27 per cent, just over a quarter of voters and the lowest level ever for a major party in the poll's history of almost four decades.

The Coalition's primary vote is a massive 49 per cent, higher than Labor's two-party-preferred 41 per cent. The Coalition's two-party preferred vote is 59 per cent. These are the same levels as seen at the NSW election in March and would result in a similar destruction of Labor should an election be held now.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/year-of-living-dangerously-20110617-1g7xq.html

 

[Logique]

So they finally dip below 30% primary.

Does this qualify as having '..lost their way..'. Even a trail of breadcrumbs couldn't get them out of this morass - of their own making.

Also, bad news for Turnbull-ites (on both sides), Tony Abbott is now equal with Julia Gillard as preferred prime minister on 46 per cent, the first time Abbott has achieved this.

But most ALP voters now want Kevin Rudd back.

 

[joea]

Previously I have posted about the unemployment figure of 4.9% is a farce, and that deployment had covered up the true figures. (equating part time with full time).

The front page of the Financial Review says.

"An army of jobless. If unemployment is 4.9%, why is it that 2.7 million people can't find work.?"
On page 44, "An invisible army".

Now a number of people will still believe Swan, but I won't, and now I understand why he goes red every time he discusses the low unemployment rate.
I understand that the labor market is changing. and people may have to reskill.

The two sizeable groups are the over 50, white collar managerial or executive job seeker
and the return to work primary care givers - usually moms.

Now I am going to enjoy watching Gillard and Swan, handle this if it get going.
And if it does, what will it do to the pols?
Cheers

 

[springhill]

I think the engine room just flooded.

The Herald/Nielsen poll, taken this week and published today, shows Labor's primary vote at 27 per cent, just over a quarter of voters and the lowest level ever for a major party in the poll's history of almost four decades.

The Coalition's primary vote is a massive 49 per cent, higher than Labor's two-party-preferred 41 per cent. The Coalition's two-party preferred vote is 59 per cent. These are the same levels as seen at the NSW election in March and would result in a similar destruction of Labor should an election be held now.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/year-of-living-dangerously-20110617-1g7xq.html

Imagine what the polls would look like if the Libs had a leader with more charisma, Abbott is doing a fine job grinding Gillard into the dirt in an unfashionable kind of way, but someone who could attract a higher % of 'preferred PM votes' would have killed her off by now. Only a matter of time folks.

Hang on.... I hear screaming.... didn't know Kev and Julia had moved in next door.....

 

[Calliope]

Of two evils which is the lesser?

Rudd leads Gillard as preferred Labor leader

As Julia Gillard approaches her first anniversary as Prime Minister, a new poll shows 60 per cent of Australians prefer former prime minister Kevin Rudd as Labor leader over 31 per cent for Ms Gillard.

The Nielsen poll, published in today's Fairfax newspapers, also shows Labor's primary vote down four points to 27 per cent - the lowest for a major party in Nielsen's 39-year history.

The primary vote for the Coalition is up three points to 49 per cent, and the Greens' primary vote is up two points to 12 per cent.

The Coalition now leads Labor on a two-party preferred basis 59 to 41 per cent, worse than polling when Mr Rudd was overthrown as Labor leader almost a year ago.

In the same poll, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott tied with Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister for the first time with both on 46 per cent.

Read More. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/18/3247227.htm