Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

So is Julia in the standard right wing line up or just one of the band of idiots in your opinion?

The facts of the matter are really, really simple:

1. Labor went into the last election with a policy to put in a carbon pricing mechanism, which they made no secret about.
2. Labor put in a carbon pricing mechanism.

No "misleading". No "lie". No "betrayal". No surprises. Just a follow-through on stated and published policy.

Everything else around this issue is just confected outrage. That the carbon pricing mechanism operates at a fixed price for the first couple of years is utterly irrelevant.

Labor said they were going to price carbon. They did. End of story.

 

[amaroo]

The facts of the matter are really, really simple:

1. Labor went into the last election with a policy to put in a carbon pricing mechanism, which they made no secret about.
2. Labor put in a carbon pricing mechanism.

No "misleading". No "lie". No "betrayal". No surprises. Just a follow-through on stated and published policy.

Everything else around this issue is just confected outrage. That the carbon pricing mechanism operates at a fixed price for the first couple of years is utterly irrelevant.

Labor said they were going to price carbon. They did. [-]End of story[/-]

Let me correct that for you.

End of ALP

 

[drsmithy]

Gillard will forever be known as the PM who broke her promise on a carbon tax. That ship has long sailed.

She knew she'd be hung out to dry on that one, but she went ahead anyway. Her expert panel evaporated in her haste to sign the Greens up to her side.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how you think the carbon pricing scheme Labor were promising to introduce going into the last election would have differed from the "carbon tax" that was actually implemented.

But nowadays, you listen - really listen with an open mind - and you'll get the Coalition asking the most straightforward questions, and receiving a load of waffle and a couple of savage barbs in return. It's savage, it really is. It's the worst part of this Parliament, the venom directed across the chamber. Just listen to Gillard's voice as she lays into those opposite. There's real hatred there.

There's plenty of it from both sides. If you don't pick it up from the Coalition, you're either not listening or too partisan to notice.

Now, it's a good Opposition that asks good questions. Searching, penetrating, probing questions. It's always been the case - an Opposition can lay bare the matters a Government would prefer covered up. We saw Peter Reith destroyed over the Children Overboard affair, and rightly so..

Indeed. Which is why the current opposition is so woeful.

 

[drron]

The facts of the matter are really, really simple:

1. Labor went into the last election with a policy to put in a carbon pricing mechanism, which they made no secret about.
2. Labor put in a carbon pricing mechanism.

No "misleading". No "lie". No "betrayal". No surprises. Just a follow-through on stated and published policy.

Everything else around this issue is just confected outrage. That the carbon pricing mechanism operates at a fixed price for the first couple of years is utterly irrelevant.

Labor said they were going to price carbon. They did. End of story.

Sorry but as I quoted Julia Gillard does not agree with you.
Nor do the majority of Australians-57% on 2 party preferred to the libs.
Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[drsmithy]

Howard stuck to his guns. He couldn't implement all he'd promised, sure, but he had the very good reason that there wasn't enough money to do it.

The Howard Government was one of the most profligate in recent memory. He was splashing money around left, right and centre. Tax cuts here, cash handouts there. If you don't really need any help, the coalition is always happy to give you as much as you can take.

And with the GST, he didn't spring it on the electorate in 1996 - he fought an election in 1998 with the GST as its core. He took some hits over that and Kim Beazley did very well. But Howard took the GST to the people and there was no doubt about his legitimacy in implementing it.

Labor took a carbon pricing policy to two elections.

The only people who think they lack "legitimacy" in implementing it, are the people who think any action taken against climate change lacks "legitimacy".

 

[drsmithy]

Sorry but as I quoted Julia Gillard does not agree with you.
Nor do the majority of Australians-57% on 2 party preferred to the libs.
Your opinion is irrelevant.

I can live with that so long as it's right.

 

[Skyring]

Labor said they were going to price carbon. They did. End of story.

End of Labor.

 

[Skyring]

The only people who think they lack "legitimacy" in implementing it, are the people who think any action taken against climate change lacks "legitimacy".

Well, now that you mention it, when is Labor going to take action?

If carbon emissions are the problem, how come we are exporting massive amounts of coal? What does Julia Gillard think they are going to do with it? Bury it or burn it?

And why aren't we working on nuclear power stations? That's the reason every other developed nation beats us on per-capita emissions. It's not that the Japanese or Americans are more frugal people it's that they don't burn as much coal per capita.

Either of those two measures would make a bigger difference than any carbon tax/price envisaged by Gillard.

 

[tgh]

amen.....................



uh, the above was in support of the end of labor post

thought we had (finally) reached a conclusion and further discussion was pointless...

 

[Skyring]

There's plenty of it (hatred) from both sides. If you don't pick it up from the Coalition, you're either not listening or too partisan to notice.

I spent a few years in uniform in my youth. Military history is a passion of mine. I look at Tony Abbott, I don't see hatred. I see the pugilist, I see the fighter making his assessments, launching his attacks. Not with hatred. There's no hatred in his voice as he asks a question. But with skill.

Gillard's responses are full of emotion. It colours her voice. The hatred and anger and bitterness are palpable. Other members of the front bench aren't so inflected - or infected. Anthony Albanese, for example. He's always the tactician, the street fighter, the cool character. If there is emotion in his voice it is scorn for the points of order and the antics to suspend Question Time.

Question Time is a performance. Abbott and Albo play their roles with skill and polish. Gillard is driven by emotion.

That's how I see it. Or rather I hear it. You know how on the phone you can tell if the other person has a smile in their voice? Well, I hear something else when Julia Gillard launches into her performance, and it's not pretty.

 

[drsmithy]

Well, now that you mention it, when is Labor going to take action?

Probably not any time soon.

If carbon emissions are the problem, how come we are exporting massive amounts of coal? What does Julia Gillard think they are going to do with it? Bury it or burn it?

Well, that's the problem with a wonderful and free market-based orthodoxy rather than an evil and oppressive interventionist one, isn't it ?

And why aren't we working on nuclear power stations?

NIMBYs

Either of those two measures would make a bigger difference than any carbon tax/price envisaged by Gillard.

In the area of electricity generation, yes.

 

[drsmithy]

End of Labor.

Probably, and for many good reasons, as well.

Dishonest media-driven hyperbole about the carbon tax, however, is not one of those reasons.

 

[eastwest101]

Labor took a carbon pricing policy to two elections.

Nope - in the 2007 election campaign the ALP took a number of things that are not contested here but Rudd said that a proposed emission trading scheme would be predicated on success of Copenhagen and would not happen without action by big emitters such as China and India. As we all now Copenhagen failed and Rudd did not get the chance to do anything more before being deposed.

Rudd's renewable 2020 vision - FederalElection2007Environment - smh.com.au

In 2010 campaign the ALP pledged to build a national consensus for a carbon price by creating a "citizens assembly", to examine "the evidence on climate change, the case for action, and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions", over the course of one year. The assembly was to be selected by an independent authority who would select people from the electoral roll using census data.

Which part of that happened? The answer is - none of it, as the PM went and did a deal with the Greens to form minority government. She was perfectly entitled to tell the Greens to "go jump" or try talking to Abbott about forming minority government, or simply holding another election campaign, but Gillard decided to introduce a carbon tax that becomes linked to the EU emission trading scheme - no one held a gun to her head - she was the leader of the party and conducted the negotiations - and she should be held to account for that decision.

If Gillard had run another election campaign with the specific pledge to introduce a carbon tax that became an emission trading scheme then I don't think there would have any issues with the result of that campaign, whatever the result would have been. At least it would have been a more open, accountable and more democratic process that the road that we have found ourselves on.

So as far that the ALP goes in 2007 we were promised action on the condition of a succesful Copenhagen and worlwide action;
and in 2010 we were promised vague further investigations by various panels and committees

 

[drsmithy]

I spent a few years in uniform in my youth. Military history is a passion of mine. I look at Tony Abbott, I don't see hatred. I see the pugilist, I see the fighter making his assessments, launching his attacks. Not with hatred. There's no hatred in his voice as he asks a question. But with skill.

Gillard's responses are full of emotion. It colours her voice. The hatred and anger and bitterness are palpable. Other members of the front bench aren't so inflected - or infected. Anthony Albanese, for example. He's always the tactician, the street fighter, the cool character. If there is emotion in his voice it is scorn for the points of order and the antics to suspend Question Time.

Question Time is a performance. Abbott and Albo play their roles with skill and polish. Gillard is driven by emotion.

That's how I see it. Or rather I hear it. You know how on the phone you can tell if the other person has a smile in their voice? Well, I hear something else when Julia Gillard launches into her performance, and it's not pretty.

Personally I prefer someone with a bit of emotional investment in their politics rather than treating it as a game.

After all, these people aren't discussing a game of golf over a few beers, they're making decisions that impact the lives of millions. It's nice to know they have some concept of that, even if they'll never (and, increasingly, have never) actually faced the reality of the average person's daily life.

However, I agree, Abbot doesn't have hatred. What Abbot has is contempt. Contempt for the people who didn't vote for him and his party. Contempt for those who disagree with him. Contempt for those who think he's wrong. He's got the standard-issue conservative "born to rule over the masses" attitude and it oozes out of him like morning-after rum sweats.

Which is a problem for Abbot, because he has serious problems keeping things under control when they're not going his way. He gets by in question time because it's mostly scripted. Get him out on the street or in interviews, and he ends up admitting he hasn't even read reports he's basing arguments on, or stands there silently shaking like he's about to punch the questioner in the face.

 

[serfty]

The facts of the matter are really, really simple:

1. Labor went into the last election with a policy to put in a carbon pricing mechanism, which they made no secret about.
2. Labor put in a carbon pricing mechanism.

No "misleading". No "lie". No "betrayal". No surprises. Just a follow-through on stated and published policy.

Everything else around this issue is just confected outrage. That the carbon pricing mechanism operates at a fixed price for the first couple of years is utterly irrelevant.

Labor said they were going to price carbon. They did. End of story.

Hmmmm ... this was all discussed back at the end of April - here's a couple of my posts from that time:

Well there you go. promised a market based scheme. Seems like a clear commitment to me. Shame people seem to only want to notice one sentence from one interview.



Well actually she had to adjust you priorities based on what the electorate presented. Interesting that you don't seem to mention the compromises that Abbott offered to gain power.

As for a promise. As Serfty posted, the promise is there in print. Market based carbon reduction scheme.....

Bulldust - So you pluck one sentence out of the whole lot.

"A market based scheme" is not a government enforced tax on carbon.

There is no reference to any tax at all.

Now, The Coalition challenged that the ALP policy was all a camouflage for a carbon tax.

When so challenged, in clarifying ALP policy, Julia made her statement, and more than once, “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.

So, that policy is not proponing a Carbon Tax, and that is definite - thanks to the PM's clarification.

Oh dear ... it is currently not market based. So it must be a tax. If nothing changes then within a few years it will be market based. So then it won't be a tax???

I am thinking something will change - dramatically - before "market based" comes into it.

 

[Moody]

You sound like my 90 year old mother in law who hated Catholics just because.

And in raising such issues it shows you don't judge people by their actions at all.

What fresh hell is this? Skyring brought the Jesuits into the argument by associating Julia Gillard with them. This could very well be true and I have no opinion on it either way, but in case Skyring was mentioning this as a slight against her I was just pointing out that Tony Abbott was educated by the Jesuits and was a fair way down the track to joining them when he thought better of it. That's all.

But now I am the villain. Even Andrew Bolt at his most rabid would not dare to go that far. Probably.

Skyring has made it abundantly clear he won't be voting for either mainstream party. He's probably the most independent person here but you just don't like it when he provides an argument which doesn't bathe Gillard on the holy glow (how appropriate) you see her in.

Skyring the most independent thinker on this forum????? You cannot be serious!!!!! I think you need to take the Alan Jones goggles off for a sniff of reality. And I have made it abundantly clear that whilst I believe (as do most truly independent observers) that Julia Gillard is a great parliamentary performer, the communication and execution of policies under her leadership has been very hit and miss.

As for asylum policy, shows how expert her panel was when they developed a solution that breached our obligations under law. Just one of a litany of incompetent solutions proffered by the Government.

Offshore processing had been around long before Julia Gillard came to power, and was championed by your friends as part of the Pacific Solution. It had never been tested in court before, but when it was ... well we all know the outcome. You can distort those facts all you like - see if I care. Everyone can see you for what you are .....

 

[tgh]

Everyone can see you for what you are..

sticks and stones again... surely you can do better than that

 

[Pushka]

I've never once listened to Alan Jones. Ever. And what exactly am I? Everyone can see me for what I am? You seriously wrote that. Sad for you really.

 

[Skyring]

Personally I prefer someone with a bit of emotional investment in their politics rather than treating it as a game.

After all, these people aren't discussing a game of golf over a few beers, they're making decisions that impact the lives of millions. It's nice to know they have some concept of that, even if they'll never (and, increasingly, have never) actually faced the reality of the average person's daily life.

A leader who makes important decisions based on emotion rather than reason is a leader I'm not going to follow.

And doubly so for someone driven in their actions by hatred of others.

Remember that description of Rudd as a man driven by rage? That's Gillard as well. Latham too. Whatever happened to people like Kim Beazley? He has and open heart and a sharp mind. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over any of the current crew.

 

[Pushka]

A leader who makes important decisions based on emotion rather than reason is a leader I'm not going to follow.

And doubly so for someone driven in their actions by hatred of others.

Remember that description of Rudd as a man driven by rage? That's Gillard as well. Latham too. Whatever happened to people like Kim Beazley? He has and open heart and a sharp mind. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over any of the current crew.

Well Kim got the sack for the memory lapse about Rove McManus. Maybe he wasn't tight enough with the union puppeteers.