Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Pukka]

So is he dismissing the markets trading in other invisible substances or just singling out this one?

He's just singling out this one as he's very religious.

 

[serfty]

Cute bit of distraction....

Certainly, my reply was to yon distractive post.

So is he dismissing the markets trading in other invisible substances or just singling out this one?

Surely just singling this one.

Looking at Q&A tonight and the observation the European ET market in this "substance" had become riddled with corruption so much the bottom fell out of the € price and and it's apparently become less effective as a detterent.

But that discussion is really for another thread: (http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/carbon-tax-29438.html)

 

[Warks]

Did anyone see this story? Is there no limit to Krudd's ego?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Reminds me of Keating's words "a conga line of suckholes". Not that they were all that willing I'd say.

Edit - "cookies must be enabled" - pity the papers are blocking all their stories these days - they think people will pay for them?

 

[medhead]

Certainly, my reply was to yon distractive post.

Oh, I see you can read my mind, still.

My post is not distractive at all. It is a post that investigates the politics of the statement, and highlights the ridiculous elements of that political statement. As such it is about discussing the political strategies around the election not the physical mechanism of the carbon tax. Hence it belongs in this thread and not over in the discussion about how the carbon tax works.while you're talking about the meaning of the individual words, I'm trying to talk about the bigger meaning of the statement and it's images - what we can take from the statement in terms of the broader political debate As such I'll maintain that your post is a distraction from the topic of this thread and the point I was raising within that topic.

Perhaps your post would be better over in the other thread and we can get on with discussing politics here.

 

[serfty]

Oh, I see you can read my mind, still.

My post is not distractive at all. It is a post that investigates the politics of the statement, and highlights the ridiculous elements of that political statement. As such it is about discussing the political strategies around the election not the physical mechanism of the carbon tax. Hence it belongs in this thread and not over in the discussion about how the carbon tax works.while you're talking about the meaning of the individual words, I'm trying to talk about the bigger meaning of the statement and it's images - what we can take from the statement in terms of the broader political debate As such I'll maintain that your post is a distraction from the topic of this thread and the point I was raising within that topic.

Perhaps your post would be better over in the other thread and we can get on with discussing politics here.

Ha! This much wordage, all over an assumed 's' which was employed to demonstrate further distraction.

No further comment from me on this in this thread.

I will restate that my primary votes will not go to the coalition, greens or labor ...

 

[oz_mark]

I will restate that my primary votes will not go to the coalition, greens or labour ...

Which leaves Labor :mrgreen:

 

[whatmeworry]

Did anyone see this story? Is there no limit to Krudd's ego?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Reminds me of Keating's words "a conga line of suckholes". Not that they were all that willing I'd say.

Edit - "cookies must be enabled" - pity the papers are blocking all their stories these days - they think people will pay for them?

Sometimes googling the link lets you see the actual page. BTW I will never subscribe to any news website when I can get similar stories for free.

 

[whatmeworry]

Good to see Tony knows his chemistry!

Tony Abbott's insistence that Labor's emissions trading scheme is an expensive exercise in buying and selling an ''invisible substance'' has drawn derision from climate experts and industry.

Read more: Abbott hit by backlash
​

 

[Skyring]

Did anyone see this story? Is there no limit to Krudd's ego?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Reminds me of Keating's words "a conga line of suckholes". Not that they were all that willing I'd say.

Edit - "cookies must be enabled" - pity the papers are blocking all their stories these days - they think people will pay for them?

I don't pay to cross paywalls out of principle. If the same story isn't being covered elsewhere, it's not much of a story.

This hardly seems like a routine happening. And since when do diplomats present their credentials to the Prime Minister? That sort of thing happens once, and with the head of state. Presumably they all visited the Governor-General on arrival in Canberra.

Kevin must think he's the Second Coming, but he's really just a very naughty boy.

(Little Monty Python humour there.)

 

[Skyring]

Sometimes googling the link lets you see the actual page.

That used to work more reliably in the past. For me, anyway. I suspect the news nerds are sticking their fingers in the dykes.

Or summat.

 

[Skyring]

Did anyone see this story? Is there no limit to Krudd's ego?

Perhaps this will work?

And this one seems to have been left outside the wall.

For someone who is supposed to be a diplomat, he certainly knows how to get up a lot of noses!

 

[Skyring]

Straight from the horse's mouth. Well, his digital mouth.

Labor's Carbon Tax Lie > Tony Abbott

Thanks. If we complain about Gillard's statements being reported incorrectly or out of context, it doesn't help if we then do exactly the same with Tony Abbott. So, excellent source, cited, and nobody can complain about context. Top marks.

Tony Abbott says, on his own website: Julia Gillard’s pre-election promise “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” was broken as soon as she made her deal with the Greens and independents.

That seems pretty straightforward. JG said there would be no carbon tax, but when she was in government she introduced one.

Here's what she said, in full, with a complete video source: When directly asked during the election campaign about the introduction of a carbon tax, the Prime Minister noted:There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. What we will do is tackle the challenge of climate change. We have invested record amounts in solar and renewable technologies. I want to build the transmission lines that will bring back clean green energy into the national average is the grid. I also want to make sure that we have no more dirty coal-fired power stations and make sure we tried greener cars and word from greener buildings. I will deliver those things and lead a national debate to reach a consensus about putting a cap on carbon pollution.(source: APH)

Now we could argue back and forth over this, but what I'm liking more and more is the approach taken by Politifact, who have actually investigated Abbott's exact statement. Their verdict: Mostly True.

 

[Skyring]

Pretty easily by observing the poster pillorying only one or two people (and both from the same team) for behaviour that all engage in to largely the same degree.

I disagree on this. Time and again I've criticised Coalition leaders for their expressed behaviour. Tony Abbott for some of his religious views, especially in relation to marriage equality and the reproductive role of women. Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Reith for lying their socks off. Joe Hockey over his economic grasp.

I'm not a shill for the Coalition, I won't be voting for them at this election, just like I haven't voted for them for decades.

Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, in my perception, are very poor examples of honest leadership. Their statements are often dishonest, misleading, evasive and abusive. Kevin Rudd promised all sorts of wonderful things in his first term as PM, but very few of them got beyond the speechifying stage. What do you call someone who promises things they can't deliver? A liar.

And what do you call someone who promises not to do things they then turn around and do?

If we look at well-sourced, in-context statements from the various leaders, we can examine them objectively. If instead we depend on partisan opinion pieces that give interpretations of unsourced attributions, then we get nowhere.

I commend Politifact to all readers. They do a great job of analysis and they look to be impartial in their approach, giving bouquets and brickbats to all sides.

 

[drsmithy]

Here's what she said, in full, with a complete video source: When directly asked during the election campaign about the introduction of a carbon tax, the Prime Minister noted:There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. What we will do is tackle the challenge of climate change. We have invested record amounts in solar and renewable technologies. I want to build the transmission lines that will bring back clean green energy into the national average is the grid. I also want to make sure that we have no more dirty coal-fired power stations and make sure we tried greener cars and word from greener buildings. I will deliver those things and lead a national debate to reach a consensus about putting a cap on carbon pollution.(source: APH)

But then there's other interviews from the same period when she says things like this:

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

Plus the actual ALP policy of pricing carbon with an ETS, (shared by the Coalition until Abbot took over).

It should not have surprised anyone that Labor legislated to price CO2. That it was structured to have a fixed price for the first few years is a minor implementation detail, and in no way a significant change to intention.

Giving the impression that Labor never planned to price carbon, rather than simply changing the mechanism for doing so slightly, as Abbot continually does, is base dishonesty.

 

[amaroo]

Haven't we buried the dead yet!

 

[Skyring]

But then there's other interviews from the same period when she says things like this:

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

And then she turned around and implemented the very carbon tax she ruled out.

The current debate is over the transition of Gillard's carbon tax to Rudd's market and how much that will cost taxpayers.

 

[drsmithy]

And then she turned around and implemented the very carbon tax she ruled out.

No, they didn't. The implemented an emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price.

The current debate is over the transition of Gillard's carbon tax to Rudd's market and how much that will cost taxpayers.

You mean the exact transition that was written into the legislation and is merely taking place a bit sooner ? Presumably this will also be dishonestly spun out of control by people faking surprise and outrage that something they were told was going to happen, is happening.

Entertaining that you link to a "mostly false" statement to try and support the argument.

 

[Pushka]

At the moment we have two oppositions. Rudd is scrambling to get as far away from Labor's last few years as possible. It's a rather surreal election campaign. Neither are doing brilliantly at the moment.

 

[Skyring]

No, they didn't. The implemented an emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price.

That ship has long sailed. Indeed Gillard’s staff pointed us to an interview in July 2011 with Weekend Today on Channel Nine, where she said compromise in Parliament has led to "a temporary carbon tax to get to a permanent emissions trading scheme".

Temporary or not, if Gillard says it's a carbon tax, that's pretty much the game right there. You calling Julia a liar when she says it's a carbon tax?

 

[serfty]

Good to see Tony knows his chemistry!

I don't think TA would be much concerned about what the people interviewed for that article (Dennis, Wilder, Wong) or the 46% of Australians (quoted in the article) who support the ETS are thinking; he would be more interested in the other 54% of the populace.

'tis Politics...