This is my main criticism of the 'mindless partisan chearleader' mentality, and my reason for starting a seoparate board for partisan issues. A party can afford a certain level of hypocrisy in it's policies, and to change policies over time in a way that does not necessarily make sense, because they inevitably represent the opinions of many people. For a person to do the same does not makle sense. I find it hard to understand how someone could be so devoted to a political party despite this.

A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties?

In my opinion, people become party chearleaders to avoid having to think for themselves. They get an idea in their head that one of the parties stands for something, then spend the rest of the time ignoring and excusing all the policies that go against that.

The Greens gained assurances from Labor about a carbon tax and ETS to help Gillard form Government.....The Independents also supported a similar policy on climate change.....Julia Gillard had to introduce a carbon tax as part of forming a minority Government.....The argument about the carbon tax has avoided the policy all together and has been all about the parties and Independents!!!

The debate should be about....

1) How do we reduce emissions???

2) What is the most cost effective policy to reduce emissions???

3) Which party has the best policy to achieve our emission targets???

:)

I understand what you are saying, but also feel the “mindless drone” or “fanatic” attitudes with political parties will always be around - human nature.  There will always be some people that “want” to be blindly led around regardless…

For the past the past four years, Australia has been Governed by a group of  parasitical politicians that have released schemes and ideas that would embarrass an 8 year olds mentality.  

Australians don’t have a competent opposition political party, and now the people find themselves involved in voting for a group of people in a race to the bottom, not to the top - which is a sad course of events in Australia’s political history.

I find it difficult to believe that the Australian public has not woken up to the fact that ALL politicians are parasites and would “do” and “say” anything to keep themselves in power, and their noses in the tax payer funded troth.

Look at the Greens policy on animal welfare issues - a key methodology in their functioning as a party, but have totally given into the demands and whims of Labor in the cruel export of live animal trade.  If this party cannot even keep one of its “key” methodologies and principals in tact as a group, then what credibility has the party got?

I have only used one issue in one party, but here are numerous issues in the Labor,  Liberal/Nation party that could also be used to emphasis how political parties now “stand” for nothing.  

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties?

Point 1
In what context?

Show us the context

Your point about Abbott gives the impression there is partisan support

So show us the context in which he made the point if not then your point is more Party related than policy related

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:56pm:

The Greens gained assurances from Labor about a carbon tax and ETS to help Gillard form Government.....The Independents also supported a similar policy on climate change.....Julia Gillard had to introduce a carbon tax as part of forming a minority Government.....The argument about the carbon tax has avoided the policy all together and has been all about the parties and Independents!!! The debate should be about.... 1) How do we reduce emissions??? 2) What is the most cost effective policy to reduce emissions??? 3) Which party has the best policy to achieve our emission targets??? :)

The first question that should be asked in relation to anything that puts a tax on the Australian people - including a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme tax is will the reduction of these emissions or carbon use “REDUCE” overall planetary temperature and by how much?

What is the point of doing something if “no one” knows how its going to work?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:56pm:

The Greens gained assurances from Labor about a carbon tax and ETS to help Gillard form Government.....The Independents also supported a similar policy on climate change.....Julia Gillard had to introduce a carbon tax as part of forming a minority Government.....The argument about the carbon tax has avoided the policy all together and has been all about the parties and Independents!!! The debate should be about.... 1) How do we reduce emissions??? what for it won't reduce world temperature 2) What is the most cost effective policy to reduce emissions??? because we have to pay for Rudd/Gillard's Kyoto penalty 3) Which party has the best policy to achieve our emission targets??? why when no one on the left is willing to acknowledge we need this policy because it's to fix Gillard/Rudd Kyoto penalty :)

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

This is my main criticism of the 'mindless partisan chearleader' mentality, and my reason for starting a seoparate board for partisan issues. A party can afford a certain level of hypocrisy in it's policies, and to change policies over time in a way that does not necessarily make sense, because they inevitably represent the opinions of many people. For a person to do the same does not makle sense. I find it hard to understand how someone could be so devoted to a political party despite this. A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties? In my opinion, people become party chearleaders to avoid having to think for themselves. They get an idea in their head that one of the parties stands for something, then spend the rest of the time ignoring and excusing all the policies that go against that.

Well in context, Abbott said a carbon tax was the cheapest OF two choices, an ETS or a Carbon Price...

Neither are actually THE cheapest way to reduce emissions.......Tax breaks for voluntary reductions and support (financial or tax incentives) for starting up green energy companies would both be cheaper....

And both systems are from ulterior motives.
The Carbon Tax is designed more to return the Government to surplus by 2013/14 and won't do very much to either reduce emissions or lower/stabilse world temperatures.
And the whole cap and trade/ETS system is a 'feel good' device so that countries or companies can give the appearance of doing something, without actually doing anything...

Quote:

So show us the context in which he made the point if not then your point is more Party related than policy related

You seem to be missing the point Maqqa.

I got the point freediver - you want a policy discussion based on merits rather than based on party lines

But if you are going to do that then at least demonstrate neutrality in the matter

As it is - you are quoting Abbott based on a sound byte therefore this is evident it's a discussion based on party politics rather than policies

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

I got the point freediver - you want a policy discussion based on merits rather than based on party lines But if you are going to do that then at least demonstrate neutrality in the matter As it is - you are quoting Abbott based on a sound byte therefore this is evident it's a discussion based on party politics rather than policies

http://copingmechanisms.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/s911_complete_moron.jpg?w=360&h=504

You are still not making any sense Maqqa.

I still think its easier to keep it simple for those that are finding it hard to understand a carbon tax.
We should think of it as a pollution tax and as Ive stated many times polluters should always pay for the pollution they produce because sooner or later some sucker has to pay the price. In the case of carbon pollution its our grand kids and the generations to come after them that will pay if we dont.
Lets just use the KISS principle for those that follow the cult of popularism  :)

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:21pm: A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties? Point 1 In what context? Show us the context Your point about Abbott gives the impression there is partisan support So show us the context in which he made the point if not then your point is more Party related than policy related

It was only an example Macca - it was as far off about Gillard as well in terms of context but that was not the point.

In reality Abbot said what he had said in the context of Labor introducing carbon trading and Gillard said what she said in the context of introducing carbon trading.

FD is right both sides are pretty close to the same position except for the politics.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:17pm: freediver wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:21pm: A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties? Point 1 In what context? Show us the context Your point about Abbott gives the impression there is partisan support So show us the context in which he made the point if not then your point is more Party related than policy related It was only an example Macca - it was as far off about Gillard as well in terms of context but that was not the point. In reality Abbot said what he had said in the context of Labor introducing carbon trading and Gillard said what she said in the context of introducing carbon trading. FD is right both sides are pretty close to the same position except for the politics.

If freediver has the courage to reference what Abbott said and the context he delivered it then we could properly argue the point

But in the meantime

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316876119/0

Reply #8

I've watched the clip twice

Do you even understand the difference between what Abbott says and the Gillard's current proposal?

They were discussing the ETS as a way to "put a price on carbon" when Rudd first introduced it

Abbott said the Carbon Tax was a better solution than the ETS ie the best of the worse situation (2:22)

He also say that you would get a rebate by keeping your receipts and claim it back at the end of the year (2:39)

Gillard's position is different - she just want to give you back $10 whereas Abbott's position is you get more back

I noted freediver tried to quote the same thing the other day - is this the best you got guys?!!

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:

You are still not making any sense Maqqa.

Then read your initial post and reference to what I wrote

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:

Abbott said the Carbon Tax was a better solution than the ETS ie the best of the worse situation (2:22) He also say that you would get a rebate by keeping your receipts and claim it back at the end of the year (2:39)

That is clearly not what he said but your exaggerated interpretation.

His plan was different - he meant a real tax not a price on carbon which he has got away with calling a tax. He talks about charging people a tax rate on carbon usage which shows like all of his plans there is no pain for the carbon producers.

Of course the other problem with his plan is that if you charge a tax at one end then at the other end give it all back as he suggests have you really charged a tax at all?

Would this have worked?  Obviously no it wouldn't.

So it seems that Abbott was in favour of a real tax but not in favour of a bogus tax.

He does not like a tax which impacts the source production even though nobody pays any tax what so ever in the process.

The liberals and Abbotts position on carbon is that there should be a price on it - this has been their position for about a decade.

Abbott is also on record as saying that if you are going to have a price on carbon then a tax is the best option (I agree with him).

This logically boils down to a statement like Tony Abbott supports a price on carbon and thinks that a tax is the best option.

This although interesting is well outside the point of the topic.

The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one.

Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions?

My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same.

Hence the tax is totally pointless.

Maqqa it is a bit disingenuous to complain that I misrepresented Coalition policy on a carbon taxes. After all, they announced their own policy to put a price on carbon a while back.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Maqqa it is a bit disingenuous to complain that I misrepresented Coalition policy on a carbon taxes. After all, they announced their own policy to put a price on carbon a while back.

 the way I see it.. they have been forced into that.. its now a worldwide PANIC.. thanks to the likes of Al Gore..

the thing is to do it without passing the v=cost onto  all and sundry I dont care what anyone says... we will end up paying a hell of a lot more than this $9.90 a week they claim we will pay... for instance did they take into account the price of petfood????

its just asmall thing but an awful lot of older people have pets..and I have noticed petfood has gone up an awful lot lately.. all these things are made by industries..which I am damn sure will get hit with this TAX.

ok.ok. I am a whinger so shoot me!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one. Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions? My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same. Hence the tax is totally pointless.

It has already effected global temps. Because of Australia's action, China has acted.


As far as a pollution cost being a tax, is the pollution cost of storage at a nuke, a tax?

Quote:

the thing is to do it without passing the v=cost onto  all and sundry

No cods, that is how the tax works.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 6:01am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:59pm: The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one. Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions? My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same. Hence the tax is totally pointless. It has already effected global temps. Because of Australia's action, China has acted. As far as a pollution cost being a tax, is the pollution cost of storage at a nuke, a tax?

Im sure somewhere inside your fevered brain you actually beleive that. I dont think anyone else does.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2011 at 6:01am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:59pm: The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one. Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions? My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same. Hence the tax is totally pointless. It has already effected global temps. Because of Australia's action, China has acted. As far as a pollution cost being a tax, is the pollution cost of storage at a nuke, a tax? Im sure somewhere inside your fevered brain you actually beleive that. I dont think anyone else does.

What do you think China do with our Coal once they acquire it? Rebury it? Your statement is so stupid I almost fell out of my chair.

culldav wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

I understand what you are saying, but also feel the “mindless drone” or “fanatic” attitudes with political parties will always be around - human nature.  There will always be some people that “want” to be blindly led around regardless… For the past the past four years, Australia has been Governed by a group of  parasitical politicians that have released schemes and ideas that would embarrass an 8 year olds mentality.   Australians don’t have a competent opposition political party, and now the people find themselves involved in voting for a group of people in a race to the bottom, not to the top - which is a sad course of events in Australia’s political history. I find it difficult to believe that the Australian public has not woken up to the fact that ALL politicians are parasites and would “do” and “say” anything to keep themselves in power, and their noses in the tax payer funded troth. Look at the Greens policy on animal welfare issues - a key methodology in their functioning as a party, but have totally given into the demands and whims of Labor in the cruel export of live animal trade.  If this party cannot even keep one of its “key” methodologies and principals in tact as a group, then what credibility has the party got? I have only used one issue in one party, but here are numerous issues in the Labor,  Liberal/Nation party that could also be used to emphasis how political parties now “stand” for nothing.

It is sad that all the politicians are considered as parasites, sad, but true, but we as voters have only the choice to vote for the candidate on the ballot paper, if we like him/her or not, unless one votes informal.

The whole democratic system could be greatly improved if all the politicians were obliged to answer any question in any form to them, and not just simply ignore it, or answer with a lot of political gobbledegook

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 30^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 30th, 2011 at 4:10pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2011 at 6:01am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:59pm: The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one. Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions? My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same. Hence the tax is totally pointless. It has already effected global temps. Because of Australia's action, China has acted. As far as a pollution cost being a tax, is the pollution cost of storage at a nuke, a tax? Im sure somewhere inside your fevered brain you actually beleive that. I dont think anyone else does. What do you think China do with our Coal once they acquire it? Rebury it? Your statement is so stupid I almost fell out of my chair.

comprehension is clearly not your strong point. try reading it again in context of grab a 12year old to explain it to you. then come back again and answer my actual comment not the stupid idiocy you imagine was said.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2011 at 6:01am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:59pm: The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one. Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions? My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same. Hence the tax is totally pointless. It has already effected global temps. Because of Australia's action, China has acted. As far as a pollution cost being a tax, is the pollution cost of storage at a nuke, a tax? Im sure somewhere inside your fevered brain you actually beleive that. I dont think anyone else does.

Didn't take you long to revert to abusing posters. No wonder a lot of posters are losing interest in this forum.

Anyone interested in taking over the Greens Mod. I have better things to do than to put up with Longweekend's abuse.

____ wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 5:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 30th, 2011 at 4:10pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2011 at 6:01am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:59pm: The point of opposition on a carbon tax is an obvious one. Why have Australian families got to suffer increased cost of living as a sirect result of a Government action for something which will do absolutely nothing to resolve global climate emissions? My opposition to the scheme is purely based on economically we are worse off and environmentally we are pretty much the same. Hence the tax is totally pointless. It has already effected global temps. Because of Australia's action, China has acted. As far as a pollution cost being a tax, is the pollution cost of storage at a nuke, a tax? Im sure somewhere inside your fevered brain you actually beleive that. I dont think anyone else does. Didn't take you long to revert to abusing posters. No wonder a lot of posters are losing interest in this forum. Anyone interested in taking over the Greens Mod. I have better things to do than to put up with Longweekend's abuse.

poor diddums. abuse? what you received was pure MOCK - mocking you deserved for thinking China is somehow following Australias 'lead'.

You left once before. maybe you should do so again if it is all too hard for you.

freediver wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Maqqa it is a bit disingenuous to complain that I misrepresented Coalition policy on a carbon taxes. After all, they announced their own policy to put a price on carbon a while back.

I always welcome a reference to discuss

Dnarever wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:37pm: Abbott said the Carbon Tax was a better solution than the ETS ie the best of the worse situation (2:22) He also say that you would get a rebate by keeping your receipts and claim it back at the end of the year (2:39) That is clearly not what he said but your exaggerated interpretation. His plan was different - he meant a real tax not a price on carbon which he has got away with calling a tax. He talks about charging people a tax rate on carbon usage which shows like all of his plans there is no pain for the carbon producers. Of course the other problem with his plan is that if you charge a tax at one end then at the other end give it all back as he suggests have you really charged a tax at all? Would this have worked?  Obviously no it wouldn't. So it seems that Abbott was in favour of a real tax but not in favour of a bogus tax. He does not like a tax which impacts the source production even though nobody pays any tax what so ever in the process. The liberals and Abbotts position on carbon is that there should be a price on it - this has been their position for about a decade. Abbott is also on record as saying that if you are going to have a price on carbon then a tax is the best option (I agree with him). This logically boils down to a statement like Tony Abbott supports a price on carbon and thinks that a tax is the best option. This although interesting is well outside the point of the topic.

then open up your right eye and watch it again

Maqqa wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 11:05am:

freediver wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 9:49pm: Maqqa it is a bit disingenuous to complain that I misrepresented Coalition policy on a carbon taxes. After all, they announced their own policy to put a price on carbon a while back. I always welcome a reference to discuss

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305806618

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1314886259

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/4#4

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315476097/76#76

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305720037/16#16

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 11:13am:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 1st, 2011 at 11:05am: freediver wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 9:49pm: Maqqa it is a bit disingenuous to complain that I misrepresented Coalition policy on a carbon taxes. After all, they announced their own policy to put a price on carbon a while back. I always welcome a reference to discuss http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305806618 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1314886259 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/4#4 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315476097/76#76 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305720037/16#16

You mentioned "announced their policy" in your post

Where is the policy document?

It was a newspaper article. I have no idea where the policy document is. As far as I can tell the coalition has no actual policy. Abbott seems to hold all positions at once, and an official policy would limit his creativity.

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 11:46am:

It was a newspaper article. I have no idea where the policy document is. As far as I can tell the coalition has no actual policy. Abbott seems to hold all positions at once, and an official policy would limit his creativity.

Cool

Your original comment refereed to the fact they announced their own policy

A newspaper article needs to be read in context

Those articles you referenced are either sound bytes or an editorial

My very first reply in this thread refer to a discussion around WHO created the problem which led Australia into this mess

Once we understand WHO - then we will understand WHAT the problem is

In understanding WHAT - we will then understand HOW we will fix the problem

So my question to you is - do you know WHO created this problem in 2007?

Here's a hint - December 2007 Bali

If you cannot bring yourself to accept the WHO because of your political bias - that's okay as well

Quote:

Once we understand WHO

Wrong Maqqa. It is the policies, not the politicians that matter. Once you realise that, you stop caring who is behind it, so long as they get the job done. That is why I do not care whether it is Gillard, Abbott, Rudd, Turnbull or Brown who gives us the carbon tax. Nor do I care how stupid they end up looking in the process.

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 3:49pm:

Quote: Once we understand WHO Wrong Maqqa. It is the policies, not the politicians that matter. Once you realise that, you stop caring who is behind it, so long as they get the job done. That is why I do not care whether it is Gillard, Abbott, Rudd, Turnbull or Brown who gives us the carbon tax. Nor do I care how stupid they end up looking in the process.

Yes, a carbon tax.
A tax on ordinary families, which will increase our cost of living, do nothing on global emissions and hinder Australian businesses in a time of global turndown.

Yep - you are right. No matter who trumpets it, it's a fking stupid idea and a terrible policy.

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 3:49pm:

Quote: Once we understand WHO Wrong Maqqa. It is the policies, not the politicians that matter. Once you realise that, you stop caring who is behind it, so long as they get the job done. That is why I do not care whether it is Gillard, Abbott, Rudd, Turnbull or Brown who gives us the carbon tax. Nor do I care how stupid they end up looking in the process.

So if it's a Labor mistake then WHO is irrelevant

But if a Liberal makes a mistake then WHO is all consuming for the lefties

You mention the "get the job done"

You have no courage to accept who made the error so how will you have the courage to accept the economics of HOW

Rudd got rid of the Pacific Solution - which resulted in more boats

Now Gillard tries to blame Abbott for boats coming into Australia even though it's clearly Labor's fault

So I want to avoid Lefties using the same tactics ie blaming the LIBs for any action that cost Australians as a result of addressing the Carbon Emission issue

So whose fault is it that Australia needs additional money from the carbon tax?

The carbon tax is not an error Maqqa. You are putting the cart before the horse.

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 5:45pm:

The carbon tax is not an error Maqqa. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Correct - the carbon tax is not the error per say. It's Labor's attempt to fix an error. You want to discuss whether the carbon tax is the best way to fix the error - but you don't have the courage to admit the error and who was responsible for the error in the first place

I am asking you if you have the courage to admit the error that occurred in December 2007 in Bali? Who was responsible for that?

You mean the 3rd of december 2007 when Australia finally caught up with the rest of the world on a climate inititive.

If you claim that this was the beginning of the issuue why did the Howard government have a climate action policy (price on carbon) which they intended to impliment if elected before this time?

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 8:09am:

freediver wrote on Oct 1st, 2011 at 5:45pm: The carbon tax is not an error Maqqa. You are putting the cart before the horse. Correct - the carbon tax is not the error per say. It's Labor's attempt to fix an error. You want to discuss whether the carbon tax is the best way to fix the error - but you don't have the courage to admit the error and who was responsible for the error in the first place I am asking you if you have the courage to admit the error that occurred in December 2007 in Bali? Who was responsible for that?

The Australian electorate

The ratification of Kyoto was key,UP FRONT election policy of the Australian Labor Party - under Kevin Rudd
Policy that was embraced by Australia, in November, 2007

The pricing of carbon permits - and the Kyoto ratification - are not VAGUELY related

( ... it should be noted, the pig-headedness of John Howard in NOT ratifying - is seen as a massive error by both Abbott and Costello)

Policies not parties is a interesting concept – in fact one which is difficult to not support in principal – that is until you realise that you may like a few policies of a particular party as is typically the case but the only way to access that policy is to elect that party.

I don’t but some may like the coalitions position on carbon for instance but you can not vote for the coalition and think you will not get their dogma on workplace relations, attacks on the unemployed and other minority groups things like returning to unfair dismissal and the employers right to reduce wages by removing penalties and O/T rates etc. Can you really afford to look at individual policies in isolation?

Say you support one party above the other based on 3 policies, if elected you probably see one implemented and working, one just dropped and never put into legislation and the other either partially implemented or  implemented poorly, but in the end you get all the other typical trends of that group.

The last 5 years it has been difficult to like the Liberals policy – they have had none. They cobble together some un-costed carp days before the election giving no chance to properly consider it.

It has also been difficult to like Labor policy – they have typically bent over to try and please the conservatives way too much – their willingness to negotiate a position with employer groups has led to poor outcomes.

OHS – finding a balance between the states has meant taking the eastern states to a lower position as a compromise to raise the standards in the west. In my view not good enough.

Modern Awards – Again compromise led to people being worse off, a problem which would have been easy to fix and wasn’t.

The last few years has been about anything but policy – the Liberals are playing a purely destructive game and Labor are allowing that agenda to play out.

Unfortunatly if you support the policy you will get the party.

Sounds like you are a minor party supporter.

I would prefer to have a system of voting by delegable proxy, which would effectively allow you to vote on each piece of legislation if you wished.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 9:16am:

You mean the 3rd of december 2007 when Australia finally caught up with the rest of the world on a climate inititive. If you claim that this was the beginning of the issuue why did the Howard government have a climate action policy (price on carbon) which they intended to impliment if elected before this time?

(1) The rest of the world - Australia already signed the Protocol when it was initially drafted?

(2) So what was the difference between signing which happened years earlier and "ratifying" which happened on 3rd of December

(3) Please show the actual Howard's Policy then we'll discuss it

freediver in this thread asked for a discussion on policies without party politics

yet he/she cannot demonstrate this by admitting

(1) what the error was that happened in December 2007

(2) who made the error

(3) how this error will cost Australia

if freediver wants to do is discuss how we fix this error and then allocate the blame to the LIBs then I will continue to persue the blame game until he/she actually admits who was to blame

so do you have the courage to admit freediver the events of December 2007, who was to blame and how it impact Australians in terms of penalties

Here's an example freediver

The ALP criticised the LIBs method on Illegal Boats and abolished the policy in 2007.

The illegals increased from 605 for the period 2002-2007 to 10,000+ in the period 2008-2011

Now the ALP is blaming the LIBs for it

If you want a policy discussion then admit that Labor created the problem and how it impacted Australia then I am happy to discuss this based on policies


http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/10383918/opposition-reckless-on-boat-arrivals-govt/

The federal government has blamed more asylum seeker boat arrivals on a "reckless and spiteful" opposition which is blocking its attempts to resurrect the scuttled Malaysia people swap deal.

Border protection authorities intercepted a boat carrying 70 asylum seekers early on Saturday morning near Christmas Island.

This is the second boat to arrive this week and the fifth boat intercepted since the High Court quashed the federal government's Malaysia people swap deal in August.

The ruling also cast doubt over offshore processing in other countries.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor has renewed pleas for opposition leader Tony Abbott to act in the "country's interest."

Quote:

freediver in this thread asked for a discussion on policies without party politics

Not exactly. I started a discussion on the merits of each approach.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

This is my main criticism of the 'mindless partisan chearleader' mentality, and my reason for starting a seoparate board for partisan issues. A party can afford a certain level of hypocrisy in it's policies, and to change policies over time in a way that does not necessarily make sense, because they inevitably represent the opinions of many people. For a person to do the same does not makle sense. I find it hard to understand how someone could be so devoted to a political party despite this. A good example is climate change policy. The Greens were the second party I know of to support a carbon tax. Abbott has spoken out in support of a carbon tax as the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Turnbull gave the idea guarded approval also. The only person flatly rejecting the idea going into the last elecetion is Gillard, yet here we are a short time later with Gillard promoting a carbon tax and Abbott decrying it as the end of the world. How could anyone take a genuine stand on the issue while still backing one of the major parties? In my opinion, people become party chearleaders to avoid having to think for themselves. They get an idea in their head that one of the parties stands for something, then spend the rest of the time ignoring and excusing all the policies that go against that.

I am glad you are providing a great commentary of your hypocrisy freediver

everyone has seen my challenge to you and you've not acknowledged it

enough said regardless of how you want to squirm out of it

to understand the merits of each approach you need to understand and admit why an approach is needed in the first place

why is Labor adopting the carbon tax is based on the failout from December 2007 and Rudd's CPRS which was implemented to fix the failout from December 2007

why the LIBs adopt it's carbon approach is based on the fall out from December 2007 as well as subsequent disastrous policies from the ALP

if a surgeon cuts off your leg to save your life do you sue him for losing your leg or are you thankful for him for saving your life

you want to focus on losing the leg so you can blame Abbott - that's not a policy discussion but rather the mindless chearleading you referred to your first post

I acknowledge you like to set up silly rules that people have to follow before they are allowed to debate you. I would hardly call them challenges.

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 1:10pm:

I acknowledge you like to set up silly rules that people have to follow before they are allowed to debate you. I would hardly call them challenges.

likewise you've set up your "policy discussion" and your rule is not to admit why are need the policy in the first place

pot meet kettle

btw

the other so called intellectual left aren't backing you in this one are they?

can't refute my UNFCCC reference over your collection of articles

I don't admit it because it is wrong Maqqa.

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 11:12am:

(3) Please show the actual Howard's Policy then we'll discuss it

If you would like to discuss the Howard policy then I suggest that you look it up yourself.

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 11:25am:

Here's an example freediver Now the ALP is blaming the LIBs for it "

This is another area where Labor is trying to please the conservatives and as usual and expected it backfires.

Off shore solutions is the Liberals approach and it is what they support.

wet here we have Tony Abbott standing in the way of using any off shore solution.

The Liberals are not being asked to support the Malaysia proposition only to support legislation which would make any off shore policy tenable.

I personally do not support this policy at all no matter who wants to impliment it or where but it is impossible to not clearly identify that at the moment it is Tony who is preventing the use of any off shore solution.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 1:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 11:25am: Here's an example freediver Now the ALP is blaming the LIBs for it " This is another area where Labor is trying to please the conservatives and as usual and expected it backfires. Off shore solutions is the Liberals approach and it is what they support. wet here we have Tony Abbott standing in the way of using any off shore solution. The Liberals are not being asked to support the Malaysia proposition only to support legislation which would make any off shore policy tenable. I personally do not support this policy at all no matter who wants to impliment it or where but it is impossible to not clearly identify that at the moment it is Tony who is preventing the use of any off shore solution.

I agree with you.
The correct approach would have been for Abbott to support the Government's bill on changing the law to allow offshore processing.

At the end of the day, whilst we all agree on where they should be processed, we all agree that we want as few asylum seekers as possible coming into Australia and many of us don't want them entering Australia at all for processing.

The Government is gone whenever there is an election. Supporting them on this would not have allowed them to claw back their unrecoverable popular standing.

As someone who sits to the Right on political opinion, Abbott was wrong here.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 1:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 11:25am: Here's an example freediver Now the ALP is blaming the LIBs for it " This is another area where Labor is trying to please the conservatives and as usual and expected it backfires. Off shore solutions is the Liberals approach and it is what they support. wet here we have Tony Abbott standing in the way of using any off shore solution. The Liberals are not being asked to support the Malaysia proposition only to support legislation which would make any off shore policy tenable. I personally do not support this policy at all no matter who wants to impliment it or where but it is impossible to not clearly identify that at the moment it is Tony who is preventing the use of any off shore solution.

how naive can you be? The govt has unequivocably said they intend to use the Malaysian solution. and that solution foundered for all the reason that horrified most of us. Abbott isnt against offshore processing. He is against giving the govt carte-blanche to select ANY country, including those that have not sign the UN refugee protocol. I dont know why you think that is so difficul to understand. Abbott supports off-shore - just not ANY shore.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 1:54pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 11:25am: Here's an example freediver Now the ALP is blaming the LIBs for it " This is another area where Labor is trying to please the conservatives and as usual and expected it backfires. Off shore solutions is the Liberals approach and it is what they support. wet here we have Tony Abbott standing in the way of using any off shore solution. The Liberals are not being asked to support the Malaysia proposition only to support legislation which would make any off shore policy tenable. I personally do not support this policy at all no matter who wants to impliment it or where but it is impossible to not clearly identify that at the moment it is Tony who is preventing the use of any off shore solution. I agree with you. The correct approach would have been for Abbott to support the Government's bill on changing the law to allow offshore processing. At the end of the day, whilst we all agree on where they should be processed, we all agree that we want as few asylum seekers as possible coming into Australia and many of us don't want them entering Australia at all for processing. The Government is gone whenever there is an election. Supporting them on this would not have allowed them to claw back their unrecoverable popular standing. As someone who sits to the Right on political opinion, Abbott was wrong here.

and your support for off-shore/any-shore is because you have zero regard for the welfare of refugees? Nauru is STILL available to the government. they just dont want to use it for political reasons.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 1:54pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 11:25am: Here's an example freediver Now the ALP is blaming the LIBs for it " This is another area where Labor is trying to please the conservatives and as usual and expected it backfires. Off shore solutions is the Liberals approach and it is what they support. wet here we have Tony Abbott standing in the way of using any off shore solution. The Liberals are not being asked to support the Malaysia proposition only to support legislation which would make any off shore policy tenable. I personally do not support this policy at all no matter who wants to impliment it or where but it is impossible to not clearly identify that at the moment it is Tony who is preventing the use of any off shore solution. I agree with you. The correct approach would have been for Abbott to support the Government's bill on changing the law to allow offshore processing. At the end of the day, whilst we all agree on where they should be processed, we all agree that we want as few asylum seekers as possible coming into Australia and many of us don't want them entering Australia at all for processing. The Government is gone whenever there is an election. Supporting them on this would not have allowed them to claw back their unrecoverable popular standing. As someone who sits to the Right on political opinion, Abbott was wrong here.

I disagree

If Abbott allows the amendments to go through then Gillard will say that Abbott supports the Malaysian Solution

Gillard will use her amendments to implement the Malaysian Solution

Of course when in government Abbott will use it to implement the Nauru Solution

So it comes down to which solution can Australians be assured that illegals are treated humanely

Clearly the High Court has rule the Malaysian Solution is unworkable

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 11:12am: (3) Please show the actual Howard's Policy then we'll discuss it If you would like to discuss the Howard policy then I suggest that you look it up yourself.

I didn't make the claim DNA - so I am not required to provide the evidence

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 4:44pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 1:41pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 11:12am: (3) Please show the actual Howard's Policy then we'll discuss it If you would like to discuss the Howard policy then I suggest that you look it up yourself. I didn't make the claim DNA - so I am not required to provide the evidence

I only stated a known fact and have no interest in discussing it.

OK then - you win - I will do your research for you.



Australia: Strong, Prosperous and Secure
Coalition policies—National progress


Australia’s ChoiceTo reduce domestic emissions at least economic cost, we will establish a world-class domestic emissions trading scheme in Australia (planned to commence in 2011). We are also committed to capturing the opportunities from being among the first movers on carbon trading in the Asia-Pacific region.

We will set a long-term emissions reduction goal for Australia in 2008 after carefully assessing the impact on our economy and on families. This target will be both environmentally credible and economically
achievable, with flexibility built in to reset the emissions trajectory in light of international developments and if new scientific information or technologies become available.

Establishing an emissions trading scheme and setting an emissions target will be among the most important economic decisions Australia will take in the next decade. Only the Coalition can be trusted to make the right decisions on these major economic reforms.

Developing key low emissions technologies is crucial to a comprehensive climate change policy framework. The Coalition has a vision of Australia as an energy superpower in the 21st Century.

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 4:43pm:

I disagree If Abbott allows the amendments to go through then Gillard will say that Abbott supports the Malaysian Solution

Rubbish she would never get away with that.

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 4:43pm:

So it comes down to which solution can Australians be assured that illegals are treated humanely

When Howard negotiated the Nauru solution the boat was already on the way - the manner in which they would be treated was the last consideration as long as they did not come to Australia all for only political reasons weeks before an election.

Liberals pretending to be caring and sharing types just does not ring true

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: I disagree If Abbott allows the amendments to go through then Gillard will say that Abbott supports the Malaysian Solution Rubbish she would never get away with that.

she is already saying Abbott supports on-shore processing so why not extend the lie a little more. After all Gillard is quites skilled in lying. Just ask the 66% of people that oppose the carbon tax she also opposed... until she was pseudo-elected.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 6:10pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: So it comes down to which solution can Australians be assured that illegals are treated humanely When Howard negotiated the Nauru solution the boat was already on the way - the manner in which they would be treated was the last consideration as long as they did not come to Australia all for only political reasons weeks before an election. Liberals pretending to be caring and sharing types just does not ring true

id rather be a Liberal PRETENDING to care and actually caring than a Labor govt pretending to care and then sending people to malaysiua to be flogged  - as we KNOW actually happens.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 7:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:06pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: I disagree If Abbott allows the amendments to go through then Gillard will say that Abbott supports the Malaysian Solution Rubbish she would never get away with that. she is already saying Abbott supports on-shore processing so why not extend the lie a little more.

While he is blocking a solution he is at least tacitly supporting the only other option which is onshore processing - this is just an obvious fact - no lie at all.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 7:03pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:10pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: So it comes down to which solution can Australians be assured that illegals are treated humanely When Howard negotiated the Nauru solution the boat was already on the way - the manner in which they would be treated was the last consideration as long as they did not come to Australia all for only political reasons weeks before an election. Liberals pretending to be caring and sharing types just does not ring true id rather be a Liberal PRETENDING to care and actually caring than a Labor govt pretending to care and then sending people to malaysiua to be flogged  - as we KNOW actually happens.

You do understand that Mr Abbott is still saying to turn the boats around?

Let them sink and watch people drown?

Crocodile tears over this one from the Libs, nothing more.

There were significant protections in the Malaysia deal

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 1:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 7:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:06pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: I disagree If Abbott allows the amendments to go through then Gillard will say that Abbott supports the Malaysian Solution Rubbish she would never get away with that. she is already saying Abbott supports on-shore processing so why not extend the lie a little more. While he is blocking a solution he is at least tacitly supporting the only other option which is onshore processing - this is just an obvious fact - no lie at all.

you'd need to be pretty dim to accept that given his puyblci support for Nauru.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 10:35am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 7:03pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:10pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: So it comes down to which solution can Australians be assured that illegals are treated humanely When Howard negotiated the Nauru solution the boat was already on the way - the manner in which they would be treated was the last consideration as long as they did not come to Australia all for only political reasons weeks before an election. Liberals pretending to be caring and sharing types just does not ring true id rather be a Liberal PRETENDING to care and actually caring than a Labor govt pretending to care and then sending people to malaysiua to be flogged  - as we KNOW actually happens. You do understand that Mr Abbott is still saying to turn the boats around? Let them sink and watch people drown? Crocodile tears over this one from the Libs, nothing more. There were significant protections in the Malaysia deal

do you SERIOUSLY believe that? Malaysis is not giving up any soverieng rights and it is on record as having flogged refugees for not having identification.  you think this is good?

On record? Is that like having it in writing?

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 11:30am:

On record? Is that like having it in writing?

it was widely reported in the media. your point?

I seem to have your attention now.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 11:08am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 1:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 7:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:06pm: Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: I disagree If Abbott allows the amendments to go through then Gillard will say that Abbott supports the Malaysian Solution Rubbish she would never get away with that. she is already saying Abbott supports on-shore processing so why not extend the lie a little more. While he is blocking a solution he is at least tacitly supporting the only other option which is onshore processing - this is just an obvious fact - no lie at all. you'd need to be pretty dim to accept that given his puyblci support for Nauru.

It was their policy going into the last election?


TONY Abbott says he will turn asylum-seeker boats back out to sea if the Coalition wins the next election, accusing Kevin Rudd of lacking the "steel" to fulfil his promise to do the same.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tony-abbott-pledges-to-turn-asylum-boats-back/story-e6frg6nf-1225814849388

http://media.smh.com.au/abbott-pledges-to-turn-back-the-boats-1514688.html

Dnarever wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 6:10pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: So it comes down to which solution can Australians be assured that illegals are treated humanely When Howard negotiated the Nauru solution the boat was already on the way - the manner in which they would be treated was the last consideration as long as they did not come to Australia all for only political reasons weeks before an election. Liberals pretending to be caring and sharing types just does not ring true

Nauru was negotiated based on the fact that Australia has TOTAL CONTROL

No such control exist under Malaysian Solution

Dnarever wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 10:35am:

There were significant protections in the Malaysia deal

Unenforceable protections - which is why the Australian High Court rejected the deal

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 12:18pm:

I seem to have your attention now.

none of which makes any sense...

I was trying to be subtle.

Maqqa wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 1:05pm:

Nauru was negotiated based on the fact that Australia has TOTAL CONTROL No such control exist under Malaysian Solution

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=603

my attention was immediately grabbed by the children. So many children, young children, three, four, five years old, gathered at the gate. All of them kept in camps since 2001. The inescapable question arises again. How can this be that the Australian taxpayer funds the deliberate imprisonment of children? I think of my own daughter, 21 months old, in the crucial stages of development  ….

…………The camp is a collection of demountables, air-conditioned against the year-round heat. The facilities, sporting, recreational and health are below that of centres in Australia. The showers and toilets are also in demountables. These use brackish water that only runs for about six hours, spread over various parts of the day……………….

I am told the facilities at the other Nauru-based camp, called State House, are worse but I am advised not to visit there for safety reasons

In the face of the government-generated harming of children, it seems almost a minor fact that it is being done at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars - funds that could go to address major needs in Australia, or indeed in Nauru and other Pacific neighbours. Even those who manage to stagger out the other side of the hoops and hurdles

The government has created a twisting labyrinth of cruelty and faceless bureaucratic dispassion that is so heartless and so lacking in any reason that Franz Kafka would not have dared to have conjured it up. Despite the lives destroyed, the vast resources squandered and the children's futures that have been stolen, our government has the audacity to call their "strategy" a success.