Carbon Tax

[dfcatch]

Actually the written policy position was always to price carbon.

Oh come on Medhead - I mean really - are you now going to pretend that she didn't say what she even admits she said??

Whilst you and I disagree on most things in this topic - you have at least had quite reasonable arguments.

This is not one of your finest points

 

[drron]

Actually the written policy position was always to price carbon.

If that is so then she did lie as she knew her party position was opposite to what she said.Thanks for the evidence.

 

[Alanslegal]

I havent been following this thread much lately but someone once said there will never be a GST, ever.

Back to more important things for me, here's the view from where I typing this right now:-

 

[medhead]

Oh come on Medhead - I mean really - are you now going to pretend that she didn't say what she even admits she said??

Whilst you and I disagree on most things in this topic - you have at least had quite reasonable arguments.

This is not one of your finest points

As good a point as saying that what someone says is the official policy. That is the limit of my point, what she said wasn't the policy. Besides if we apply the coalition's standard, disagreement between written policy and the spoken word is acceptable. Don't believe everything I say - Tony Abbott | News.com.au

NB not a party political point, I just don't think it is valid to point fingers at one side when both sides do exactly the same thing. This lie thing is a held up as a reason to get rid of the government. But this position totally ignores the important question - what will replace the government? The opposition? What is achieved by replacing someone for lying with someone who also lies?

 

[dfcatch]

If that is so then she did lie as she knew her party position was opposite to what she said.Thanks for the evidence.

Oh no! I hadn't looked at it from that angle.

I was actually trying to be completely objective and just analyzing her position and the "lie accusation" without actually being partial.

The "lie" issue, and the arguments for / against the tax itself are two very separate issues.

But the "lie" or "about face" (whatever you want to call it), combined with hung parliament, precarious minority etc - all adds up to a political position which doesn't lend itself to these kinds of political acrobatics.

Whilst I don't agree with what John Howard did with the workchoices policy (and going from an election policy of "removing unfair dismissal from small employers of 20 or less" to 100 employees and the rest of workchoices), he had a huge majority buffer which he felt he could gamble with. Now of course we all know how that gamble worked out for him.

But in Gillard's case - she can't blame anyone else for the predicament that she's in - it's entirely of her making.

That said, if by some miracle she does pull it off, and manages an electoral turn-around.... Then extra credit to her for pulling off a difficulty 10.0 maneuver.

But I'm not putting my money on it....

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I havent been following this thread much lately but someone once said there will never be a GST, ever.

Then changed their mind
Then had an election


See the difference?
And, l will admit, l am a swinging voter. Both parties (sides) make mistakes.

(Alanslegal, nice view!)

 

[dfcatch]

As good a point as saying that what someone says is the official policy. Besides if we apply the coalition's standard disagreement between written policy and the spoken word is acceptable. Don't believe everything I say - Tony Abbott | News.com.au

NB not a party political point, I just don't think it is valid to point fingers at one side when both sides do exactly the same thing. This lie thing is a held up as a reason to get rid of the government. But this position totally ignores the important question - what will replace the government? The opposition? What is achieved by replacing someone for lying with someone who also lies?

Point taken.

But the public goes to election day and votes based on the policies presented to them by the parties during the election campaign.

If Abbott won, and did the exact opposite to that which he promised during the campaign - he would be rightly attacked for that.
Hence why Gillard is under attack for it now.

That's why people don't pay too much attention to what pollies say outside of election campaigns

Cynical yes - but that's the electorate.


Alan - remember that John Howard then went back to an election with the GST as a policy, and he then won that election.

My point above was simply that Gillard has the same option. And then she kills the "lie accusation".

Look - she doesn't have to lose the next election either.
If I was her - honestly - I would dump the tax for now, say that she will do the right thing and not introduce it until after the next election, that gives her two years to get on with government and move on with other issues.

In two years - with the "lie" and "mandate" issues no longer there, people may be more open to the tax as a legitimate way to deal with global warming, other issues such as asylum seekers and the NBN might be sorted, and the government's fortunes may be on the improve.

That would be my advice to her if I was her advisor. Hell - the public might even start listening to her again....

The bonus for the ALP is that it would also force the coalition to concentrate on a broader range of policies than simply opposing the carbon tax.

Thus endeth my political analyses for the evening, I'm tired.

 

[medhead]

Then changed their mind
Then had an election


See the difference?
And, l will admit, l am a swinging voter. Both parties (sides) make mistakes.

No difference. Holding an election doesn't change what happened before. It is disturbing that some people can accept that Howard changed his mind but can't accept that Gillard also changed her mind.

There is also the fact that Howard did not get great than 50% of the vote on any measure during the GST election. So while we did get enough seats, the majority people who voted didn't get their choice. The whole GST election as an example is a complete sham, as some example of what should happen. It should be rightly viewed as an example of how Howard mislead the Australian public about the turn nature of our democractic system, to his benefit (no not saying that is wrong).

 

[medhead]

But the public goes to election day and votes based on the policies presented to them by the parties during the election campaign.

True and I don't even recall following anything about carbon tax at the last election. I certainly did not hear her mistruth until it was dragged out my the media much later. My fault for not taking an interest.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Medhead - Can I please have some of the drugs you are taking?

 

[dfcatch]

No difference. Holding an election doesn't change what happened before. It is disturbing that some people can accept that Howard changed his mind but can't accept that Gillard also changed her mind.

There is also the fact that Howard did not get great than 50% of the vote on any measure during the GST election. So while we did get enough seats, the majority people who voted didn't get their choice. The whole GST election as an example is a complete sham, as some example of what should happen. It should be rightly viewed as an example of how Howard mislead the Australian public about the turn nature of our democractic system, to his benefit (no not saying that is wrong).

Medhead - you can't be serious with your argument???

1/ Nobody cares that Gillard changed her mind. Nobody gives a rats about that.

The issue isn't that she changed her mind, it's that she won't take her new position to an election before implementing it. That's the difference between her and Howard with the GST.

She explicitly stated "no carbon tax" in the election campaign. Then after winning, wants to do the exact opposite without going back to the electorate first.

Are you seriously arguing this aspect???

2/ Howard won in 1998 fair and square under our electoral system. Whether you like it or not.

Just as Gillard won fair and square in 2010 whether I like it or not.

If you really want to question the legitimacy of the 1998 win then you are opening up an enormous can of worms with regard to the legitimacy of the Gillard minority government in 2010.

But I'm not going to go there because I don't question the legitimacy of our democratic system. I accept it - as should everyone.

 

[oz_mark]

Look - she doesn't have to lose the next election either.
If I was her - honestly - I would dump the tax for now, say that she will do the right thing and not introduce it until after the next election, that gives her two years to get on with government and move on with other issues.

She can't dump it. The circumstances of the last election and requiring the support of the greens to form government ensures that. If Labor had won in its own right, then perhaps we wouldn't even be having this conversation!!

 

[dfcatch]

She can't dump it. The circumstances of the last election and requiring the support of the greens to form government ensures that. If Labor had won in its own right, then perhaps we wouldn't even be having this conversation!!

That's the conventional wisdom - I don't argue with that.

But - I think Gillard should have more confidence, she could surprise herself with the support she may receive by showing real leadership strength.

After all - she is the Prime Minister.

I mean - if she goes it alone - what are the Greens and Independents REALLY going to do when push comes to shove?

Are they going to withdraw support for Confidence and enter into Coalition with the Coalition?

Are they going to withdraw support for Confidence and have a situation where the ALP can not form a parliamentary majority and therefore force the issuance of writs for a new election?

With polling how it is the Independents would certainly be turfed out, the Greens may lose their lower house seat, Abbott would almost certainly be Prime Minister with a huge majority. And as a result the Carbon Tax would be dead in the water.

I truly believe that if push came to shove - and she called their bluff - they would have no choice but to do it on her terms.

The Prime Minister is holding more markers than she realises - if she chose to use them - it may just work in her favour.

 

[drron]

True and I don't even recall following anything about carbon tax at the last election. I certainly did not hear her mistruth until it was dragged out my the media much later. My fault for not taking an interest.

Well you didn't watch her first press conference as PM then did you?She promised to consult with the Australian people and establish a consensus on the price of carbon.That has not occurred.
If you missed it here it is-
‪Prime Minister Julia Gillard's press conference Part 1‬‏ - YouTube
So she said she would take it to the Australian people,so why doesn't she?

 

[medhead]

Medhead - you can't be serious with your argument???

1/ Nobody cares that Gillard changed her mind. Nobody gives a rats about that.

The issue isn't that she changed her mind, it's that she won't take her new position to an election before implementing it. That's the difference between her and Howard with the GST.

She explicitly stated "no carbon tax" in the election campaign. Then after winning, wants to do the exact opposite without going back to the electorate first.

Are you seriously arguing this aspect???

Hold on a minute here. There are 2 completely separate things. 1 She lied and 2 she won't hold an election. Read the paper and watch TV and you will see that people are questioning the lie.

As for taking it to an election. See you comments below. In our electoral system she does not have to do that. Frankly demanding that she does and insisting she lied if she doesn't hold an electron is not supporting our electoral system. That position also displays some level of ignorance about the system IMO. (edit: that's not directed at you, it's a comment about people in shopping centers repeating glib pointless comments)

2/ Howard won in 1998 fair and square under our electoral system. Whether you like it or not.

Just as Gillard won fair and square in 2010 whether I like it or not.

If you really want to question the legitimacy of the 1998 win then you

Sorry please read what I wrote fully. I am not questioning that he won. Never said that at all. drron also made the mistaken interpretation. What I'm saying (have done a number of times) is that having taken the GST to an election he did not get majority support. Simple fact that is not a comment of whether he had the numbers or legitimacy to form government. (I already wrote all this). If that election was truly about testing support for the GST then it should not have been implemented. Instead we got this BS about a mandate, on 49% of the vote (no drron I'm not saying he almost lost).

In the GST case the outcome and resulting action did not reflect the way people voted on the day. Hence an election is not a way to determine legitimacy of a single issue or policy. An electorate by electorate reconciliation of votes will not always reflect the majority view (should that is obvious having grown up in QLD). A mandate, an electoral approval, require majority agreement not a majority of seats. i.e. An election is not an appropriate way to test what you want tested.

Hopefully you can understand now my point about the difference between winning an election and getting a mandate.

Well you didn't watch her first press conference as PM then did you?She promised to consult with the Australian people and establish a consensus on the price of carbon.That has not occurred.
If you missed it here it is-
‪Prime Minister Julia Gillard's press conference Part 1‬‏ - YouTube
So she said she would take it to the Australian people,so why doesn't she?

I've already answered this: there are many ways to consult besides just an election. Industry has been consulted widely as evidenced by many newspaper stories. How many months has the public had to submit their views? Instead of reasoned constructive contributions we've had lied, continuing to lie and no mandate.

Consensus on the price? How is that determined by an election? It isn't. That is why the government has gone to the productivity commission, economists and industry to get their view on the price. i.e. Consulted widely.

 

[dfcatch]

Medhead - we agree on many points.

Where we differ is our interpretation of "mandate".

IMHO - if Gillard went to the election (or the next one) with the carbon tax as a policy, won the election (even as a minority government) then IMO she has a mandate.

Common sense dictates that the larger the majority - the larger the mandate.

You are correct in that Howard only just won the election in 98, therefore by my reasoning he had a mandate albeit not an overwhelming one.

I am consistent in my application of my views, I don't give special preference to either side of politics.

Personally I couldn't care less if she or he changed their minds, blatantly told fibs, whatever. But I do believe that if you turnabout substantially then you need to go back to the electorate.

Or not - just don't complain if people then accuse you of lying.

You're very much into the nitty-gritty detail Medhead.

But in my very humble opinion - I think you'll find that people (whilst perhaps focusing on the lie), are really just miffed that they haven't had the chance to vote on the new position (even if it didn't change the government).

 

[medhead]

Well that's nice but I'll stick with the dictionary definition of mandate.

BTW I'm not making any comment about Howard only just winning or otherwise. He won. but still didn't have greater than 50% support.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Well that's nice but I'll stick with the dictionary definition of mandate.

And the definition of lying?

 

[medhead]

And the definition of lying?

That's a question for anyone who says gillard lied. They seem to be incapable of understanding that saying something you believe is true and then changing your mind is not a lie. Now before we get too exciting, I raise the GST example to test if someone's definition of lying is party political.

 

[drron]

However the constant raising of Howard and the GST when responding to the controversy over the Carbon tax Does give the impression of a party political view no matter what your intentions are in raising it.The conservative side of politics remembers well the vitriol heaped on Howard and is slightly incredulous that people are questioning the relative minor claim of Julia lying.
But as you said before she said there would be no carbon tax even though she knew it was her party's written policy=lie.

There has been no consultation with the Australian people re the Carbon tax.She announced the tax and any disagreement has been ignored.And have you forgotten her election committment of bringing together a consultative committee to discuss it.I know it would have made no difference a the ALP would pick the committee but there has not been even the pretence of consultation.

which brings us to the second lie.This was obviously the price of green support in forming government.This however she has denied-just google hers and bob brown's press conferences and you will find the proof.

Finally I agree that most that comes out of TAs mouth just adds to global warming but does any one actually read what Julia says when occasionally she isn't just being negative about TA.Asked about climate change she replied that monitoring at Cape Grim has definitely shown rises in CO2 levels which proves global warming-talk about putting the cart before the horse!Does bring up questions about her advisors credentials.