IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,650
- Reactions
- 4,725
Turnbull is a small L liberal that would attract those voters that only voted green so they didn't have to vote for Gillard or Abbott. He is more likely to get senate power that any of the others. He is a capitalist at heart and a damn good one at that. Abbott will be delighted with the precedent set by the NSW government regarding retrospective legislation and will be working out what he can do in that regard. He will have more non core promises than Costello ever thought possible. A drovers dog will defeat Gillard. It is long term and control of the Senate that should be the goal.
Is this even achievable? Or feel good politics? Was there a time frame for this? I doubt a realistic one.
.
2025
Indeed. However, in the account I heard of it yesterday (ABC Radio) it is non binding, i.e. simply a target to aim for. Probably a bit like Labor government surpluses in Australia.Thanks Knobby, do you have a link?
Wonder if there was any mention of job losses, that's a big target in only 14 years.
Indeed. However, in the account I heard of it yesterday (ABC Radio) it is non binding, i.e. simply a target to aim for. Probably a bit like Labor government surpluses in Australia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions
The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue.
Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament that the "carbon budget" – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in law.
Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's climate change chief, hailed the outcome as "very encouraging" and "an example" to other countries, which she said showed that countries could pursue economic growth while cutting emissions. "This is a recognition that to be very ambitious on public spending [cuts] does not mean you can't be ambitious on climate change targets," she told the Guardian.
David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the government advisory body that proposed the target, said: "This is going to deliver higher [economic] growth for the UK. It could well give us lower electricity prices in the future than our competitors."
Huhne – currently at the centre of claims he persuaded someone else to take speeding penalty points on his behalf – said the government would produce plans later in the year laying out ways to compensate energy-hungry businesses for any competitive disadvantage. The policies necessary to meet the new carbon targets will be set out in October.
Fears that ministers would reject the Committee on Climate Change's proposals for pollution limits in the fourth "carbon budget" had prompted an outcry from environmentalist groups.
The carbon budget runs from 2023 to 2027, part of efforts to meet legally binding emissions cuts of 80% by 2050, and will put the UK on target for 60% cuts by 2030. There will be a review of the budget in 2014, under a compromise.
The chancellor, George Osborne, Phillip Hammond, the transport secretary, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, were against the so-called fourth carbon budget, and secured the review of the ambitious targets should other EU countries fail to match them.
Environmentalists believe the timing of the 2014 review, shortly before an election, would make it difficult for the Conservatives to weaken the targets. The Climate Change Act also stipulates that the plans can only be changed in response to external circumstances.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions
The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue.
Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament that the "carbon budget" – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in law.
Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's climate change chief, hailed the outcome as "very encouraging" and "an example" to other countries, which she said showed that countries could pursue economic growth while cutting emissions. "This is a recognition that to be very ambitious on public spending [cuts] does not mean you can't be ambitious on climate change targets," she told the Guardian.
David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the government advisory body that proposed the target, said: "This is going to deliver higher [economic] growth for the UK. It could well give us lower electricity prices in the future than our competitors."
Huhne – currently at the centre of claims he persuaded someone else to take speeding penalty points on his behalf – said the government would produce plans later in the year laying out ways to compensate energy-hungry businesses for any competitive disadvantage. The policies necessary to meet the new carbon targets will be set out in October.
Fears that ministers would reject the Committee on Climate Change's proposals for pollution limits in the fourth "carbon budget" had prompted an outcry from environmentalist groups.
The carbon budget runs from 2023 to 2027, part of efforts to meet legally binding emissions cuts of 80% by 2050, and will put the UK on target for 60% cuts by 2030. There will be a review of the budget in 2014, under a compromise.
The chancellor, George Osborne, Phillip Hammond, the transport secretary, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, were against the so-called fourth carbon budget, and secured the review of the ambitious targets should other EU countries fail to match them.
Environmentalists believe the timing of the 2014 review, shortly before an election, would make it difficult for the Conservatives to weaken the targets. The Climate Change Act also stipulates that the plans can only be changed in response to external circumstances.
Makes the arguments here seem really lame.
I don't think it will be too long after the election that Turnbull supporters push him to take the helm. I hope he doesn't and stays a team man for at least one term in government, just to get some stability back in politics. But, I have a feeling he'll be pushed.
At least he's been honest about the talk and towing the party line.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...prefer-him-to-tony-abbott-20130714-2pxqm.html
That's probably a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.Surely they will move before the election? how can the Noalition go into the election with a leader that has a preferred PM rating significantly lower than MT and Significantly lower than Rudd....there is no Aust, historical precedent that would support Tony winning with such a low preferred PM rating.
http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/wentworth.htm
...In terms of area, the division of Wentworth is the smallest division in Australia...
He said there would not be a leadership change in the Liberals before the federal election this year.
The Left's choice, but not going to happen.
Tony Abbott will be great PM. Why else would Labor be so obsessed with him.
The Left's choice, but not going to happen.
Tony Abbott will be great PM. Why else would Labor be so obsessed with him.
The coalition would be stupid to follow the Labor party modus operandi of changing your leader, reversing your policy stance as a reaction to polls.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?