Jules Gillard at her lying best

From 2005

Quote:

The Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them. That is the difference between you and us. If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel—word for word—exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation.

Dont know about the site link, but it is on there somewhere.
http://www.kevinruddthedisaster.com/

Oh my. Was that the first lie we would have heard her utter. What a sickening contrast to the lying pieces of sh.. we actually have from labor in power.

I dont actually listen to anything they have to say anymore... it never happens....or it does happen when they say it wont...so whats the point?

all they do now is attack anyone that disagrees with them.. I find that tacky to be honest..

they dont attack the party its the man all the time..

I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel.

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:00am:

I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel.

Hardly surprising. There seems to be a moronic 30% that sticks with these incompetent, pure lying and deceiving party.

Some like you who dont know when they are being scammed and the others just doing the 'whats in it for me' unionists.

cods wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 5:55am:

I dont actually listen to anything they have to say anymore... it never happens....or it does happen when they say it wont...so whats the point? all they do now is attack anyone that disagrees with them.. I find that tacky to be honest.. they dont attack the party its the man all the time..

Same here. Thats quote above can almost stand next to "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:00am:

I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel.

its a CARBON TAX for 3 year got nothing to do with an ETS..emmissions trading scheme...


call this what you like ITS A MASSIVE NEW TAX..

and is not what she promised in 2007.

and if you believe any of their promises for the future.. well good luck with that.

All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith.

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:00am:

I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel.

You give your preference to Labor because this party
somehow benefits you and to hell with everyone else!

I do OK under the Coalition or Labor, but my children and grandchildren are struggling under Labor and my great grandchildren will suffer even more unless these bast*rds are  kicked out and when I say "kicked out" I mean it literally!

Unless Labor is voted out next election, the communists will take over - then everyone will be  poor except the heavies who are "more equal than others" (remember Stalin?)

Thank goodness for the Australian greens, that hold the balance of power in the senate.   :)

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 5:49am:

Jules Gillard at her lying best From 2005 Quote: The Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them. That is the difference between you and us. If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel—word for word—exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation. Dont know about the site link, but it is on there somewhere. http://www.kevinruddthedisaster.com/

was that the "real" julia then, or version III ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:01am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 5:49am: Jules Gillard at her lying best From 2005 Quote: The Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them. That is the difference between you and us. If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel—word for word—exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation. Dont know about the site link, but it is on there somewhere. http://www.kevinruddthedisaster.com/ was that the "real" julia then, or version III ?

I think that was the Juliar that was in denial that the real Juliar and the new Juliar and the Juliar mark III were pushing her around, trying to get out of her head and through her mouth.

Well we saw the outcome of the Juliar not in denial and all 3 of her talking and doing policy at one time or another.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 8:01am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 5:49am: Jules Gillard at her lying best From 2005 Quote: The Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them. That is the difference between you and us. If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel—word for word—exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation. Dont know about the site link, but it is on there somewhere. http://www.kevinruddthedisaster.com/ was that the "real" julia then, or version III ? I think that was the Juliar that was in denial that the real Juliar and the new Juliar and the Juliar mark III were pushing her around, trying to get out of her head and through her mouth. Well we saw the outcome of the Juliar not in denial and all 3 of her talking and doing policy at one time or another.

I feel everything about this woman is phoney...its all a sham..she only talks when she is on a podium with a script in front of her...remember when she said she wouldnt be using a script.. only to come undone when one was filmed on the podium..

lies come so naturally to this person..no way should she be a PM>.

Don't worry, everything will be wonderful and beautiful again when the Sussex Street union power brokers decide it is time to replace poor old broken down doddering half dead Miss Gillard with the renewed sparkling bright and brilliant Robert Carr !!!!!

Bob will hit the road with the tires smoking, those twin exhausts thundering being fed by the big supercharged V8 and he will pass everything like it was standing still.

Election victory is certain with Bob at the wheel just so long as he does not cause an international incident while he is doing Kevin Rudd's old job. Even Tony Abbott is worried.

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:50am:

All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith.

and the notion of breaking your election promises ISNT a breach of faith?

JuLiar had to break her promise or go to another election.

She chose to break her promise.

Its not just the broken promise its the arrogance of people who seek power to impose their will on other peoples lives, interfere with them and to profit from it.  The carbon tax in not only rooted in a lie from beginning to end, it is immoral and evil and it is unearned welfare, stolen wealth.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 7:29am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. You give your preference to Labor because this party somehow benefits you and to hell with everyone else! I do OK under the Coalition or Labor, but my children and grandchildren are struggling under Labor and my great grandchildren will suffer even more unless these bast*rds are  kicked out and when I say "kicked out" I mean it literally! Unless Labor is voted out next election, the communists will take over - then everyone will be  poor except the heavies who are "more equal than others" (remember Stalin?)

I'm an indoctrinated economist who loves the price mechanism. I hate market imperfections such as externalities and anti competitive behaviour. I'm paid a fair enough whack so I'm probably better off under a government that provides middle class welfare. But I'm a product of the working class so you're not going to catch me with my hand out asking for assistance I don't need.

I support the current government because I've read enough to understand AGW real. Those of us who have bothered to read the peer reviewed papers understand the science is settled. How fast we get there is debatable but the destination is settled.

Just like you, I'm motivated by the impact our actions will have on future generations. The difference is I read the science while you allow demagogues like Bolt and Jones to filter the science you get.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Its not just the broken promise its the arrogance of people who seek power to impose their will on other peoples lives, interfere with them and to profit from it.  The carbon tax in not only rooted in a lie from beginning to end, it is immoral and evil and it is unearned welfare, stolen wealth.

Nobody who is rooted in reason, science or a sound work ethic could conclude the Carbon Tax is anything but a socialist fraud, rooted in lies and free middle class welfare... :P

A tax directly imposed on our own competitiveness and right to prosper an arbitrary imposition on the market pricing - anyway you want to dress it up is sociaism and welfare - the science supports me, economics support me and reason... :)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 7:02pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:50am: All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith. and the notion of breaking your election promises ISNT a breach of faith?

We were promised an ETS, that was Labor Party policy. An interim carbon levy that morphs into an ETS is a good outcome. If Julia delivered business as usual she would not have a skerrick of moral credibility to clothe herself. Ironically, the morally bankrupt have turned this into her greatest sin.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Its not just the broken promise its the arrogance of people who seek power to impose their will on other peoples lives, interfere with them and to profit from it.  The carbon tax in not only rooted in a lie from beginning to end, it is immoral and evil and it is unearned welfare, stolen wealth. Nobody who is rooted in reason, science or a sound work ethic could conclude the Carbon Tax is anythiny but a socialist fraud, rooted in lies and free middle class welfare... :P A tax directly imposed on our own competitiveness and right to prosper an arbitrary imposition on the market pricing - anyway you want to dress it up is sociaism and welfare - the science supports me, economics support me and reason... :)

Explain to me how allowing a company to externalize an environmental cost is not corporate welfare.

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 8:00pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Its not just the broken promise its the arrogance of people who seek power to impose their will on other peoples lives, interfere with them and to profit from it.  The carbon tax in not only rooted in a lie from beginning to end, it is immoral and evil and it is unearned welfare, stolen wealth. Nobody who is rooted in reason, science or a sound work ethic could conclude the Carbon Tax is anythiny but a socialist fraud, rooted in lies and free middle class welfare... :P A tax directly imposed on our own competitiveness and right to prosper an arbitrary imposition on the market pricing - anyway you want to dress it up is sociaism and welfare - the science supports me, economics support me and reason... :) Explain to me how allowing a company to externalize an environmental cost is not corporate welfare.

Remember - there is no cost to the company - the Fraudulent Socialist Carbon Price regulation is passed strait  on as a cost to the poorest and working class.  In effect its a typical socialist welfare state con - robbing from the richest,  and the working class and poorest and redistributing it as handouts for middle class welfare.  But one thing that cannot be ignored is that it is a con - an ideological con imposed on people whether they agree or not.  Its a very cruel, unjust con.

The fairest thing to do to prevent evil people abusing power to impose immoral taxation is to simply abolish taxation all together - that is the only way I can see to weed the middle class off Government handouts and 'entitlements'. :)

If the market is concentrated enough for these companies to pass off the whole tax to consumers, explain why they haven't already creamed off these profits.

Shame on those who tax with malicious intent - shame on the Carbon Tax fraudsters.  The cost of living for the working class and the poor has gone through the roof because of deliberate socialist intervention in the economy. 8-) 8-)

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 7:29am: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. You give your preference to Labor because this party somehow benefits you and to hell with everyone else! I do OK under the Coalition or Labor, but my children and grandchildren are struggling under Labor and my great grandchildren will suffer even more unless these bast*rds are  kicked out and when I say "kicked out" I mean it literally! Unless Labor is voted out next election, the communists will take over - then everyone will be  poor except the heavies who are "more equal than others" (remember Stalin?) I'm an indoctrinated economist who loves the price mechanism. I hate market imperfections such as externalities and anti competitive behaviour. I'm paid a fair enough whack so I'm probably better off under a government that provides middle class welfare. But I'm a product of the working class so you're not going to catch me with my hand out asking for assistance I don't need. I support the current government because I've read enough to understand AGW real. Those of us who have bothered to read the peer reviewed papers understand the science is settled. How fast we get there is debatable but the destination is settled. Just like you, I'm motivated by the impact our actions will have on future generations. The difference is I read the science while you allow demagogues like Bolt and Jones to filter the science you get.

Well I make just over $200,000 a year, and do not see why it is that I should be penalised by this Socialist government, especially when this was a clear lie. All that it is is a money distribution tax; it will have no effect on the climate. I have never been working class, but I know many who are, and they are in total agreement with me on this.

An Old lady in our neighborhood died in the heat because the could not afford to run her air conditioner...her  neighbor said the Greens and the Government had her so frightened that she just gave up the will to live... :(

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 7:02pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:50am: All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith. and the notion of breaking your election promises ISNT a breach of faith? We were promised an ETS, that was Labor Party policy. An interim carbon levy that morphs into an ETS is a good outcome. If Julia delivered business as usual she would not have a skerrick of moral credibility to clothe herself. Ironically, the morally bankrupt have turned this into her greatest sin.

No, this was all her own doing. No one made her go back on her promise, she made a conscience decision to do so. Your application of the term 'morally bankrupt' is irony of the highest order. How can you blame anyone else for HER decision to renege? Also, the carbon tax will never turn into an ETS, because the election is due well before then.

How are you being penalised, John?

You were  happy to have your prices subsidised by future generations and now you're whinging cause you have to pay your right whack. Typical Liberal, happy to be subsidised.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:

An Old lady in our neighborhood died in the heat because the could not afford to run her air conditioner...her  neighbor said the Greens and the Government had her so frightened that she just gave up the will to live... :(

She died for nothing - terrorized to death by lies and fear-mongering and greed... The Carbon Tax scam killed her...:(

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

How are you being penalised, John? You were  happy to have your prices subsidised by future generations and now you're whinging cause you have to pay your right whack. Typical Liberal, happy to be subsidised.

Firstly, what do you even mean? I work in business, and am not payed, nor have I been payed by the government. Secondly, I am a centrist swinging voter. Thirdly, why did you not respond to the rest of my post?

Read the science John. Our emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce the productivity of our planet in the future. You're consuming resources at a price well below their true value. It's called intergenerational subsidisation. As a businessman you should know the best way to solve problems like this is through the price mechanism. Instead you want our taxes to subsidise your shift to a less carbon intensive business structure. Tell me what business you're in and I'll tell you where else you're being subsidised.

Read the Propaganda - its all bullsh!t socialist ideology with no scientific basis.  Never before has such a con ever been imposed against the will of the people - it even eclipses the GST.  This is a tax on age and the elderly and a tax to eliminate the working class from the economy - its that simple and cruel.  And it is a lie. 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:44pm:

... - it even eclipses the GST. ...

Would you rather go back to paying sales tax?

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:58pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 9:44pm: ... - it even eclipses the GST. ... Would you rather go back to paying sales tax?

Nope, I oppose Sales Tax.  If you going to tax, it must be a steeply graduated progressive personal income tax or nothing. 8-)

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 7:02pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:50am: All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith. and the notion of breaking your election promises ISNT a breach of faith? We were promised an ETS, that was Labor Party policy. An interim carbon levy that morphs into an ETS is a good outcome. If Julia delivered business as usual she would not have a skerrick of moral credibility to clothe herself. Ironically, the morally bankrupt have turned this into her greatest sin.

its really quite simple. she promised there woudl be no carbon tax and immediately introduced a carbon tax. there is no wriggling out of that one. it is an iron-clab breach of promise.

If Gillard had the numbers in parliament we would not have a carbon tax. She doesn't have the numbers so we have a compromise. What she wasn't prepared to do was put off the inevitable for a more politically convenient time. She has my respect.

MOTR wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 7:38am:

If Gillard had the numbers in parliament we would not have a carbon tax. She doesn't have the numbers so we have a compromise. What she wasn't prepared to do was put off the inevitable for a more politically convenient time. She has my respect.

Even Tony Abbott said a carbon tax was the best way to deal with the issue so by his evaluation Julia is going down the right road.
Or was Tony lying when he praised a carbon tax?

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:

Read the science John. Our emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce the productivity of our planet in the future. You're consuming resources at a price well below their true value. It's called intergenerational subsidisation. As a businessman you should know the best way to solve problems like this is through the price mechanism. Instead you want our taxes to subsidise your shift to a less carbon intensive business structure. Tell me what business you're in and I'll tell you where else you're being subsidised.

"Read the science"? Do you mean from so-called experts like Flannery and Garnaut? If so, then no thank you.

I would like toy address my other points. Why did you call me a typical Liberal voter, when I am not, and how is what I earn anyone's business but my own, when I am payed by the tax-payer, but in the private sector?

Gillard lied, you cannot escape this, and why would you call the Coalition and others "morally bankrupt" for pointing out this lie?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 8:54am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 7:38am: If Gillard had the numbers in parliament we would not have a carbon tax. She doesn't have the numbers so we have a compromise. What she wasn't prepared to do was put off the inevitable for a more politically convenient time. She has my respect. Even Tony Abbott said a carbon tax was the best way to deal with the issue so by his evaluation Julia is going down the right road. Or was Tony lying when he praised a carbon tax?

Are you referring to that infamous video? He says "IF".

john_g wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 8:54am: MOTR wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 7:38am: If Gillard had the numbers in parliament we would not have a carbon tax. She doesn't have the numbers so we have a compromise. What she wasn't prepared to do was put off the inevitable for a more politically convenient time. She has my respect. Even Tony Abbott said a carbon tax was the best way to deal with the issue so by his evaluation Julia is going down the right road. Or was Tony lying when he praised a carbon tax? Are you referring to that infamous video? He says "IF".

If you are going to take action against carbon pollution the best way to go is a carbon tax.
The Libs still have a policy to combat carbon pollution so they obviously believe its needed so why are they not taking the best route according to Tony Abbott?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:36am: adelcrow wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 8:54am: MOTR wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 7:38am: If Gillard had the numbers in parliament we would not have a carbon tax. She doesn't have the numbers so we have a compromise. What she wasn't prepared to do was put off the inevitable for a more politically convenient time. She has my respect. Even Tony Abbott said a carbon tax was the best way to deal with the issue so by his evaluation Julia is going down the right road. Or was Tony lying when he praised a carbon tax? Are you referring to that infamous video? He says "IF". If you are going to take action against carbon pollution the best way to go is a carbon tax. The Libs still have a policy to combat carbon pollution so they obviously believe its needed so why are they not taking the best route according to Tony Abbott?

Tony Abbott did not sa IF you are going to ebate CO2, then have a tax. He said if you are going to put a price on carbon, then put a simple tax.

Tony Abbott has found the better way of ebatement, while not taxing or putting a price on carbon. Paid for by (if liberals elected as labor could never be a responsible government financial wise) the current tax pool. No tax, no pricing and no socialist redistribution of wealth.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

If you are going to take action against carbon pollution the best way to go is a carbon tax. ?

And hand the money back to people to pay it....

Yeah massively sensible idea.

I wouldn't know what to do with that $3 compensation I would get in tax cuts by the way.

$3 for the whole year. It's like a lotto win eh...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:40am: If you are going to take action against carbon pollution the best way to go is a carbon tax. ? And hand the money back to people to pay it.... Yeah massively sensible idea. I wouldn't know what to do with that $3 compensation I would get in tax cuts by the way. $3 for the whole year. It's like a lotto win eh...

I dont agree with the compensation aspect because its purely political but as we know people can either use the compensation to pay the extra in their bills or cut their consumption of carbon intensive goods and services and use the compensation for whatever they please.

Meanwhile.......

China Blocks More Airbus Jets

Move Escalates Trade Battle Over EU's New Levies on Greenhouse Emissions


PARIS—China is holding back the approvals Chinese airlines need to buy 10 more Airbus A330 jetliners, a person close to the situation said Thursday.

The move is part of an escalating trade row over the European Union's new levies on aviation greenhouse emissions. The Chinese authorities have already held back approvals for the purchase of 45 Airbus passenger aircraft by airlines based in China and Hong Kong.
Orders worth more than $14 billion are now at risk for the aircraft-making unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. EAD.FR +0.92%NV. Airbus is a major contributor to French exports.

"There is a hellish battle going on behind the scenes," a senior French government official said Thursday. "We knew [the emissions levies] would provoke strident protests," the official said. "Now we're facing a real threat."

Chinese officials have denied moving to block new Airbus orders. A spokeswoman for the Civil Aviation Administration of China said on Monday that the government "will respect the views of the airlines" in ordering planes. She added that the Chinese government hopes to reach a resolution through negotiation.

Under the EU program, any airline operating at an EU airport must hold special credits to offset its carbon-dioxide emissions since the start of this year. Airlines have said their inclusion in what is known as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which already covered many EU industries, will cost them billions of dollars annually.

European airlines as well as Airbus may soon bear the brunt of a trade war, particularly if Russia retaliates, the person close to the situation said. "If Russia imposes [additional] overflight charges, that could turn out to be very expensive for European airlines, [considering] Russia's airspace is huge," the person said. Overflight charges are fees imposed by some countries for flying through their airspace.

Last week, Airbus and European aviation-related companies sent letters to the leaders of France, Germany, Spain and the U.K., warning of consequences of retaliatory action by foreign governments. India had warned that European airlines face the suspension or nonextension of traffic rights or overflights, and Russia has threatened additional overflight charges, they said.

European law makers Thursday backed the inclusion of all airlines in the ETS in a vote in the European Parliament in the French city of Strasbourg.

"If Europe would decide not to implement the legislation just because of the pressure from third countries, that would set a very negative precedent also for other fields of politics such as regulation of the financial market or trade policy," said Matthias Groote and Peter Liese, two members of the assembly who have followed the ETS closely.

Even though the vote is only a political indication with no legal implications, it is significant because the Parliament is throwing its weight behind legislation that has pitted the EU against 23 other countries angry about the carbon-dioxide trading plan. In a joint declaration statement last month after a meeting in Moscow, the countries argued that the EU's unilateral imposition of the ETS program will lead to market distortions and unfair competition.

"The threat of retaliation creates uncertainty in the business environment," said Victoria Moores, spokeswoman for the Association of European Airlines in Brussels. "We want to see concrete steps toward de-escalating this" through the International Civil Aviation Organization, Ms. Moores said. The ICAO is the specialized aviation agency of the United Nations.

The EU is "fighting hard" to get results at ICAO, said a spokesman for EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard. "If countries criticizing our system have the necessary political will to make it happen, then let's get it done. In the light of an ambitious global agreement in force, we will review our legislation."

Bertrand Lebel, Executive Vice President of Air France-KLM, said in an interview: "We're caught in the middle. We don't dispute that airlines should contribute to offsetting their emissions, but it has to be done through international negotiation, preferably through the ICAO." He observed that Gulf carriers will benefit most from the ETS, as they will be able to bypass Europe and build up traffic between east and west through their hubs in the Gulf.

EADS said last week the Chinese authorities were holding back approvals for 35 A330s ordered by Chinese airlines as well as 10 A380 super jumbos that are destined for Hong Kong-based airlines. Last month, China banned its airlines from taking part in the ETS plan.

Airbus has already started cutting metal for some of the A330s that are scheduled for delivery to Chinese airlines starting in 2013.

The Chinese customers have made down payments on the aircraft and stand to forfeit these sums if they cancel the orders. Airbus has warned that the loss of the Chinese orders puts 1,000 jobs at risk as well as a similar number at its suppliers.

Industry analysts say Airbus would be able to find airlines willing to take the Chinese delivery slots without any difficulty, provided the manufacturing process isn't too far advanced as airlines require a certain degree of customization of the planes they need.

Retaliatory action against the EU would intensify the pressure on European airlines with long-haul operations, as they struggle to cope with high fuel costs and growing competition.

Australia's going to tell China what to do on emissions are they??

:)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Australia's going to tell China what to do on emissions are they?? :)

Nope but waiting for the rest of the world to do something hasnt been Australias thing since Hawke and Keating started reforms.
Imagine if we did nothing and followed the rest of the world back then..we would be in a recession that would make Greece look good.

john_g wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 9:40pm: Read the science John. Our emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce the productivity of our planet in the future. You're consuming resources at a price well below their true value. It's called intergenerational subsidisation. As a businessman you should know the best way to solve problems like this is through the price mechanism. Instead you want our taxes to subsidise your shift to a less carbon intensive business structure. Tell me what business you're in and I'll tell you where else you're being subsidised. "Read the science"? Do you mean from so-called experts like Flannery and Garnaut? If so, then no thank you. I would like toy address my other points. Why did you call me a typical Liberal voter, when I am not, and how is what I earn anyone's business but my own, when I am payed by the tax-payer, but in the private sector? Gillard lied, you cannot escape this, and why would you call the Coalition and others "morally bankrupt" for pointing out this lie?

You're correct, while it might be typical Liberal behaviour, that does not necessarily make you a Liberal.

They are morally bankrupt because they are playing politics with what is surely the greatest threat to humanity we have ever experienced. Once reality hits, Malcolm Turnbull will be the only one of this treasonous lot that will be remembered with any respect. Abbott will be remembered as the man who was prepared to gamble the future of his children, and our children, for his own personal aggrandisement.

MOTR wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:34am: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 9:40pm: Read the science John. Our emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce the productivity of our planet in the future. You're consuming resources at a price well below their true value. It's called intergenerational subsidisation. As a businessman you should know the best way to solve problems like this is through the price mechanism. Instead you want our taxes to subsidise your shift to a less carbon intensive business structure. Tell me what business you're in and I'll tell you where else you're being subsidised. "Read the science"? Do you mean from so-called experts like Flannery and Garnaut? If so, then no thank you. I would like toy address my other points. Why did you call me a typical Liberal voter, when I am not, and how is what I earn anyone's business but my own, when I am payed by the tax-payer, but in the private sector? Gillard lied, you cannot escape this, and why would you call the Coalition and others "morally bankrupt" for pointing out this lie? You're correct, while it might be typical Liberal behaviour, that does not necessarily make you a Liberal. They are morally bankrupt because they are playing politics with what is surely the greatest threat to humanity we have ever experienced. Once reality hits, Malcolm Turnbull will be the only one of this treasonous lot that will be remembered with any respect. Abbott will be remembered as the man who was prepared to gamble the future of his children, and our children, for his own personal aggrandisement.

World wide emissions are going up. 100's of millions of people are gaining wealth and lifting their carbon foot print as they seek life's comforts and modern technology.

Can you tell me what Tony Abbott can do about it?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 5:49am:

Jules Gillard at her lying best From 2005 Quote: The Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them. That is the difference between you and us. If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel—word for word—exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation. Dont know about the site link, but it is on there somewhere. http://www.kevinruddthedisaster.com/

non-core promise      
A commitment to deliver (a service, funding, an item) that is subsequently set aside. The broken promise is then explained with the glib expression "oh, but that promise was non-core".

Now generalised to non-political situations, too.

Origin: Australian federal elections at the turn of the 20th/21st centuries. The conservative party (known as the Liberal/National coalition) made a number of election promises which were broken soon after the election. The prime minister, John Howard, attempted to explain this behaviour by claiming that some promises are "core" and some are "non-core" and thus, don't count.
Not only did "No tax increases, no new taxes" turn out to be a non-core promise, but in the campaign, Howard had also given a solemn undertaking that "I'm not going to break any promises". That one was certainly non-core.

Laurie Oakes (Australian political reporter/writer)
Excerpt from National Nine News (network TV) 12 May 2005
as quoted at news.ninemsn.com.au

So your immeasurably small mind has immeasurably short memory. The question is how Abbott will survive now he has wrecked it for all future politicians. He will be sacrificed if he even sways slightly after using this issue to relentlessly attack a Government. Good luck losers you are backing a fly blown sheep

This might be from the AWU but it makes for a good giggle.

http://www.awu.net.au/109589607626152_5.html?H%7C19%7C109589607626152%7C1650569191203

MOTR wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:34am: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 9:40pm: Read the science John. Our emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce the productivity of our planet in the future. You're consuming resources at a price well below their true value. It's called intergenerational subsidisation. As a businessman you should know the best way to solve problems like this is through the price mechanism. Instead you want our taxes to subsidise your shift to a less carbon intensive business structure. Tell me what business you're in and I'll tell you where else you're being subsidised. "Read the science"? Do you mean from so-called experts like Flannery and Garnaut? If so, then no thank you. I would like toy address my other points. Why did you call me a typical Liberal voter, when I am not, and how is what I earn anyone's business but my own, when I am payed by the tax-payer, but in the private sector? Gillard lied, you cannot escape this, and why would you call the Coalition and others "morally bankrupt" for pointing out this lie? You're correct, while it might be typical Liberal behaviour, that does not necessarily make you a Liberal. They are morally bankrupt because they are playing politics with what is surely the greatest threat to humanity we have ever experienced. Once reality hits, Malcolm Turnbull will be the only one of this treasonous lot that will be remembered with any respect. Abbott will be remembered as the man who was prepared to gamble the future of his children, and our children, for his own personal aggrandisement.

So pointing out a PM's blatant lie and criticising her for it is 'playing politics? Climate change is hardly a proven science. Why should we believe fools like Flannery after his idiotic and wrong predictions?

john_g wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:21pm:

So pointing out a PM's blatant lie and criticising her for it is 'playing politics? Climate change is hardly a proven science. Why should we believe fools like Flannery after his idiotic and wrong predictions?

No, undermining his leader who had negoiated an ETS with the elected government who BTW campaigned quite openly on bringing one in so therefore had a mandate to do so is the reason Abbott is nothing but a hypocrite when calls for an election for the public to decide on anything.

As proven if he doesn't like what we vote for he ignores it.

So POT/KETTLE BLACK seems to come to mind everytime I hear Abbott spruke his garbage.

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:00am:

I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel.

Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street?

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 7:37pm:

JuLiar had to break her promise or go to another election. She chose to break her promise.

And you think that's OK, not dishonest and so unworthy of a PM?

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street?

Can you explain how you think an ETS will work & how it will close down business?

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 7:29am: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. You give your preference to Labor because this party somehow benefits you and to hell with everyone else! I do OK under the Coalition or Labor, but my children and grandchildren are struggling under Labor and my great grandchildren will suffer even more unless these bast*rds are  kicked out and when I say "kicked out" I mean it literally! Unless Labor is voted out next election, the communists will take over - then everyone will be  poor except the heavies who are "more equal than others" (remember Stalin?) I'm an indoctrinated economist who loves the price mechanism. I hate market imperfections such as externalities and anti competitive behaviour. I'm paid a fair enough whack so I'm probably better off under a government that provides middle class welfare. But I'm a product of the working class so you're not going to catch me with my hand out asking for assistance I don't need. I support the current government because I've read enough to understand AGW real. Those of us who have bothered to read the peer reviewed papers understand the science is settled. How fast we get there is debatable but the destination is settled. Just like you, I'm motivated by the impact our actions will have on future generations. The difference is I read the science while you allow demagogues like Bolt and Jones to filter the science you get.

The ETS impact on future generations will be poverty for all except  those "more equal than others".

Hopefully, Abbott will become our next PM (warts, jug-handle ears, mumms, errs, etc..) and save the country.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:21pm: So pointing out a PM's blatant lie and criticising her for it is 'playing politics? Climate change is hardly a proven science. Why should we believe fools like Flannery after his idiotic and wrong predictions? No, undermining his leader who had negoiated an ETS with the elected government who BTW campaigned quite openly on bringing one in so therefore had a mandate to do so is the reason Abbott is nothing but a hypocrite when calls for an election for the public to decide on anything. As proven if he doesn't like what we vote for he ignores it. So POT/KETTLE BLACK seems to come to mind everytime I hear Abbott spruke his garbage.

Didn't the Coalition vote for Abbott (albeit by 1 vote, although I heard recently that many who voted for Turnbull are now on Abbott's side anyway) because they disagree with Turnbull's agreement with the ETS. Putting Abbott there has done wonders for them. I don't like Abbott very much as a politician, but you can't deny that he has put the Coalition in a terrific place, from the wilderness in which they found themselves when Turnbull was leader.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street?

John Howard went to his last election promising an ETS so given Howards track record of creating jobs and prosperity for everyone in this country I can only assume its a great idea. Even Tony Abbott thought it was a good idea during that election campaign before supporting a carbon tax before the last election before changing his mind again and again and again blah blah blah

john_g wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:31pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:21pm: So pointing out a PM's blatant lie and criticising her for it is 'playing politics? Climate change is hardly a proven science. Why should we believe fools like Flannery after his idiotic and wrong predictions? No, undermining his leader who had negoiated an ETS with the elected government who BTW campaigned quite openly on bringing one in so therefore had a mandate to do so is the reason Abbott is nothing but a hypocrite when calls for an election for the public to decide on anything. As proven if he doesn't like what we vote for he ignores it. So POT/KETTLE BLACK seems to come to mind everytime I hear Abbott spruke his garbage. Didn't the Coalition vote for Abbott (albeit by 1 vote, although I heard recently that many who voted for Turnbull are now on Abbott's side anyway) because they disagree with Turnbull's agreement with the ETS. Putting Abbott there has done wonders for them. I don't like Abbott very much as a politician, but you can't deny that he has put the Coalition in a terrific place, from the wilderness in which they found themselves when Turnbull was leader.

I been over Turnbulls unfortunate decision to become leader so early many times, needless to say you are ignoring the VERY REAL circumstances of the time.
The ONLY reason Abbott is where he finds himself is because of Labor and Gillard, he is the very fortunate winner of this perfect storm.

I notice in your haste to praise Tony you have ignored the fact he ignored a mandated policly of an elected majority government.
Why now should we believe he wants what voters want?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:31pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:21pm: So pointing out a PM's blatant lie and criticising her for it is 'playing politics? Climate change is hardly a proven science. Why should we believe fools like Flannery after his idiotic and wrong predictions? No, undermining his leader who had negoiated an ETS with the elected government who BTW campaigned quite openly on bringing one in so therefore had a mandate to do so is the reason Abbott is nothing but a hypocrite when calls for an election for the public to decide on anything. As proven if he doesn't like what we vote for he ignores it. So POT/KETTLE BLACK seems to come to mind everytime I hear Abbott spruke his garbage. Didn't the Coalition vote for Abbott (albeit by 1 vote, although I heard recently that many who voted for Turnbull are now on Abbott's side anyway) because they disagree with Turnbull's agreement with the ETS. Putting Abbott there has done wonders for them. I don't like Abbott very much as a politician, but you can't deny that he has put the Coalition in a terrific place, from the wilderness in which they found themselves when Turnbull was leader. I been over Turnbulls unfortunate decision to become leader so early many times, needless to say you are ignoring the VERY REAL circumstances of the time. The ONLY reason Abbott is where he finds himself is because of Labor and Gillard, he is the very fortunate winner of this perfect storm. I notice in your haste to praise Tony you have ignored the fact he ignored a mandated policly of an elected majority government. Why now should we believe he wants what voters want?

Yes, perhaps you're correct there.

I don't like Abbott, never really have. He seems a decent sort of man, but I don't like him at all as a politician. I've said as much on more than one occasion.

What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:36pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street? Can you explain how you think an ETS will work & how it will close down business?

Any business, most everything needs power to operate. Someone will have to pay this tax and businesses as well as councils, will just filter it down to the consumers so, what they get in compensation will go to paying the higher costs on everything.

As the government is bringing in this tax to pay for their own mishandling of programs, they'll get their handfuls first and, too bad for those who'll miss out in the distribution.

Just more work for bureaucrats and one big unholy mess for the rest.

Hallelujah!

FriYAY wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 1:26pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 1:03pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:34am: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 9:40pm: Read the science John. Our emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce the productivity of our planet in the future. You're consuming resources at a price well below their true value. It's called intergenerational subsidisation. As a businessman you should know the best way to solve problems like this is through the price mechanism. Instead you want our taxes to subsidise your shift to a less carbon intensive business structure. Tell me what business you're in and I'll tell you where else you're being subsidised. "Read the science"? Do you mean from so-called experts like Flannery and Garnaut? If so, then no thank you. I would like toy address my other points. Why did you call me a typical Liberal voter, when I am not, and how is what I earn anyone's business but my own, when I am payed by the tax-payer, but in the private sector? Gillard lied, you cannot escape this, and why would you call the Coalition and others "morally bankrupt" for pointing out this lie? You're correct, while it might be typical Liberal behaviour, that does not necessarily make you a Liberal.  They are morally bankrupt because they are playing politics with what is surely the greatest threat to humanity we have ever experienced. Once reality hits, Malcolm Turnbull will be the only one of this treasonous lot that will be remembered with any respect. Abbott will be remembered as the man who was prepared to gamble the future of his children, and our children, for his own personal aggrandisement.  World wide emissions are going up. 100's of millions of people are gaining wealth and lifting their carbon foot print as they seek life's comforts and modern technology. Can you tell me what Tony Abbott can do about it?

 
So what we desperately need is some sort of global commitment. Something that those on the right have assiduously sort to sabotage. Whether it be Kyoto, Copenhagen or Durban. 

Despite this, in Durban, world governments finally committed themselves to write a comprehensive global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, covering developed and developing countries. Whether you like it or not the world has committed itself to a low carbon future. As the truth comes out momentum will grow and countries that don't come on board are going to be left well behind the pack, dependent on old technology and isolated by certain economic sanctions. Each country that moves on this creates momentum and makes collective action more likely to occur before it is too late. Leaders who foster denialism and pursue business as usual policies imperil our future.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:40pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:36pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street? Can you explain how you think an ETS will work & how it will close down business? Any business, most everything needs power to operate. Someone will have to pay this tax and businesses as well as councils, will just filter it down to the consumers so, what they get in compensation will go to paying the higher costs on everything. As the government is bringing in this tax to pay for their own mishandling of programs, they'll get their handfuls first and, too bad for those who'll miss out in the distribution. Just more work for bureaucrats and one big unholy mess for the rest. Hallelujah!

Why did Abbott support Howards proposed ETS if it was going to end life as we know it?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:36pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street? John Howard went to his last election promising an ETS so given Howards track record of creating jobs and prosperity for everyone in this country I can only assume its a great idea. Even Tony Abbott thought it was a good idea during that election campaign before supporting a carbon tax before the last election before changing his mind again and again and again blah blah blah

Points out that even intelligent people like Howard and Abbott can have their brains temporarily numbed by bast*rds like Flannery and Garnaut.

Seems that since, both Howard and Abbott have woken up to the hoax science.

On the other hand both may have realised that the carbon dioxide threat was a hoax but just humoured the fools who'd swallowed the propaganda.

After all, they are politicians and sometimes have to go part-way with modern beliefs or get trampled down by a stampede.

Take Rudd who goes to church. . . can anyone believe that he is a true Christian (or a "true" anything)?

john_g wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:53pm:

What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean?

Sorry,  thought I was being reasonably clear.
Rudd in 07 very publicly campaigned on bringing an ETS in.
He was elected with a majority, which in this day and age is seen as a mandate.
The Greens opposed his model as not strong enough so therefore he negotiated it through with the coalition.
Abbott encouraged by Mitchen and the Nationals then took his chance and knocked off Turnbull as leader, and scrapped the deal, effectively thumbing his nose at the majority of Australian voters and the mandate given to Rudd.

I personally think Abbott would/is a reasonable pollie, if you need someone to pull others into line or doggedly pursue a policy his the one, he's just not a leader or PM he needs to be directed, shown a target.
Which in a way is a reason his doing so well, his target is Gillard but when we start asking what he'll do he goes to water.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:44pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:36pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street? John Howard went to his last election promising an ETS so given Howards track record of creating jobs and prosperity for everyone in this country I can only assume its a great idea. Even Tony Abbott thought it was a good idea during that election campaign before supporting a carbon tax before the last election before changing his mind again and again and again blah blah blah Points out that even intelligent people like Howard and Abbott can have their brains temporarily numbed by bast*rds like Flannery and Garnaut. Seems that since, both Howard and Abbott have woken up to the hoax science. On the other hand both may have realised that the carbon dioxide threat was a hoax but just humoured the fools who'd swallowed the propaganda. After all, they are politicians and sometimes have to go part-way with modern beliefs or get trampled down by a stampede. Take Rudd who goes to church. . . can anyone believe that he is a true Christian (or a "true" anything)?

Abbott and the Liberal Party supported an ETS right up until Andrew Robb dragged himself out the mental asylum at the request of Iron Bar Tuckey to knife Malcolm Turnbull.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:40pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:36pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:00am: I gave my preferences to Labor because at the last two elections they promised an ETS, something Julia is delivering lock stock, and barrel. Will you explain what you expect the ETS to do for you and for Australia apart from closing down more businesses and putting people out on the street? Can you explain how you think an ETS will work & how it will close down business? Any business, most everything needs power to operate. Someone will have to pay this tax and businesses as well as councils, will just filter it down to the consumers so, what they get in compensation will go to paying the higher costs on everything. As the government is bringing in this tax to pay for their own mishandling of programs, they'll get their handfuls first and, too bad for those who'll miss out in the distribution. Just more work for bureaucrats and one big unholy mess for the rest. Hallelujah!

Another question, if a tax on 500 companies will destroy our economy, cost jobs and raise prices, why won't a tax on 3200 do the same?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 5:11pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:53pm: What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean? Sorry,  thought I was being reasonably clear. Rudd in 07 very publicly campaigned on bringing an ETS in. He was elected with a majority, which in this day and age is seen as a mandate. The Greens opposed his model as not strong enough so therefore he negotiated it through with the coalition. Abbott encouraged by Mitchen and the Nationals then took his chance and knocked off Turnbull as leader, and scrapped the deal, effectively thumbing his nose at the majority of Australian voters and the mandate given to Rudd. I personally think Abbott would/is a reasonable pollie, if you need someone to pull others into line or doggedly pursue a policy his the one, he's just not a leader or PM he needs to be directed, shown a target. Which in a way is a reason his doing so well, his target is Gillard but when we start asking what he'll do he goes to water.

Ok, thank you. Yes, I agree on all points. As I have said on countless occasions before, I am a centrist a swinging voter, I have voted Liberal 4 times, Labor 3, so it's nearly even. I don't think that Abbott is PM material either, but he will be no worse than Gillard. Both are terrible choices, in my view. How do you feel?

john_g wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:11pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:53pm: What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean? Sorry,  thought I was being reasonably clear. Rudd in 07 very publicly campaigned on bringing an ETS in. He was elected with a majority, which in this day and age is seen as a mandate. The Greens opposed his model as not strong enough so therefore he negotiated it through with the coalition. Abbott encouraged by Mitchen and the Nationals then took his chance and knocked off Turnbull as leader, and scrapped the deal, effectively thumbing his nose at the majority of Australian voters and the mandate given to Rudd. I personally think Abbott would/is a reasonable pollie, if you need someone to pull others into line or doggedly pursue a policy his the one, he's just not a leader or PM he needs to be directed, shown a target. Which in a way is a reason his doing so well, his target is Gillard but when we start asking what he'll do he goes to water. Ok, thank you. Yes, I agree on all points. As I have said on countless occasions before, I am a centrist a swinging voter, I have voted Liberal 4 times, Labor 3, so it's nearly even. I don't think that Abbott is PM material either, but he will be no worse than Gillard. Both are terrible choices, in my view. How do you feel?

Exactly the same only Abbot's front bench scares me alot more than Labors.

Labor may leave a debt but at least they don't encourage & pander to the lowest common denominators in our society.

MOTR wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:50am:

All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith.

Compromises I can understand and accept. But to go back on what was an iron-clad promise, unambiguous and clear to the Australian people just to win office shows a lack of honour, honesty and integrity. She does not deserve to be our PM for that reason alone.

Abbott and the Liberal Party supported an ETS right up until Andrew Robb dragged himself out the mental asylum at the request of Iron Bar Tuckey to knife Malcolm Turnbull.


And Keating supported a GST.

blackadder wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:21am:

Abbott and the Liberal Party supported an ETS right up until Andrew Robb dragged himself out the mental asylum at the request of Iron Bar Tuckey to knife Malcolm Turnbull. And Keating supported a GST.

And so do I

blackadder wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:21am:

Abbott and the Liberal Party supported an ETS right up until Andrew Robb dragged himself out the mental asylum at the request of Iron Bar Tuckey to knife Malcolm Turnbull. And Keating supported a GST.

Keating supported a consumption tax but abandoned it because they could not find a method of implementation which was not more damaging to the people who could least afford it than any benefit.

The Liberals also could not find a fair implementation of the tax but obviously didn't care about that at all.

Everyone supported the concept of a more broad based tax system in theory.

For the conservatives there was the added bonus of it diverting wealth away from the poor in favour of the more well off. The same reason that Keating eventually dropped the idea.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 6:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:11pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:53pm: What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean? Sorry,  thought I was being reasonably clear. Rudd in 07 very publicly campaigned on bringing an ETS in. He was elected with a majority, which in this day and age is seen as a mandate. The Greens opposed his model as not strong enough so therefore he negotiated it through with the coalition. Abbott encouraged by Mitchen and the Nationals then took his chance and knocked off Turnbull as leader, and scrapped the deal, effectively thumbing his nose at the majority of Australian voters and the mandate given to Rudd. I personally think Abbott would/is a reasonable pollie, if you need someone to pull others into line or doggedly pursue a policy his the one, he's just not a leader or PM he needs to be directed, shown a target. Which in a way is a reason his doing so well, his target is Gillard but when we start asking what he'll do he goes to water. Ok, thank you. Yes, I agree on all points. As I have said on countless occasions before, I am a centrist a swinging voter, I have voted Liberal 4 times, Labor 3, so it's nearly even. I don't think that Abbott is PM material either, but he will be no worse than Gillard. Both are terrible choices, in my view. How do you feel? Exactly the same only Abbot's front bench scares me alot more than Labors. Labor may leave a debt but at least they don't encourage & pander to the lowest common denominators in our society.

Why?

I don't see how the Coalition pander to the LCD more than Labor, either. Could you kindly elaborate?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:08am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:50am: All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith. Compromises I can understand and accept. But to go back on what was an iron-clad promise, unambiguous and clear to the Australian people just to win office shows a lack of honour, honesty and integrity. She does not deserve to be our PM for that reason alone.

As far as I was concerned the Labor Party had made an iron clad commitment to do something about shifting to a less carbon intensive economy. Indeed, they had a mandate from the previous election.

MOTR wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:08am: MOTR wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 6:50am: All minority governments are forced to compromise. An interim carbon tax is more consistent with Labor policy than doing nothing. Business as usual would have been a worse breach of faith. Compromises I can understand and accept. But to go back on what was an iron-clad promise, unambiguous and clear to the Australian people just to win office shows a lack of honour, honesty and integrity. She does not deserve to be our PM for that reason alone. As far as I was concerned the Labor Party had made an iron clad commitment to do something about shifting to a less carbon intensive economy. Indeed, they had a mandate from the previous election.

Shame not all Australians are stupid enough to fall for that. Otherwise the polls might not have labor losing NSW STYLE.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

Shame not all Australians are stupid enough to fall for that. Otherwise the polls might not have labor losing NSW STYLE.

http://www.piano.christrup.net/PIANO/FORUM/rofl.gif

It's a 3% margin lolly! And there's like 18 months to go!!

http://www.piano.christrup.net/PIANO/FORUM/rofl.gif

Ah well, you just keep that "losing NSW style" thought close to your heart if it keeps you warm lolly. Geez, I know how little else you righties have got to make you feel good. I mean... Abbott!!??

http://www.piano.christrup.net/PIANO/FORUM/rofl.gif

The more states that go to the Libs the more chance Labor has of holding power after the next federal election.
Howard played to it when he was in power and if Jewliar has any sense so will she.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:

The more states that go to the Libs the more chance Labor has of holding power after the next federal election. Howard played to it when he was in power and if Jewliar has any sense so will she.

One problem but labrats. A big new tax, debt, lie after lie, full blown incompetence ect ect. The one problem is the labor party themselves.

This labor government holds all precendence in why you should not vote labor back into federal power. I can't remember the last time a party was so toxic.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:

The more states that go to the Libs the more chance Labor has of holding power after the next federal election. Howard played to it when he was in power and if Jewliar has any sense so will she.

Not if Julia is still leading. Surely they will have to put in someone else after the Qld massacre. They couldn't be stupid enough not to, right?

john_g wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 6:22pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 6:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:11pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:53pm: What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean? Sorry,  thought I was being reasonably clear. Rudd in 07 very publicly campaigned on bringing an ETS in. He was elected with a majority, which in this day and age is seen as a mandate. The Greens opposed his model as not strong enough so therefore he negotiated it through with the coalition. Abbott encouraged by Mitchen and the Nationals then took his chance and knocked off Turnbull as leader, and scrapped the deal, effectively thumbing his nose at the majority of Australian voters and the mandate given to Rudd. I personally think Abbott would/is a reasonable pollie, if you need someone to pull others into line or doggedly pursue a policy his the one, he's just not a leader or PM he needs to be directed, shown a target. Which in a way is a reason his doing so well, his target is Gillard but when we start asking what he'll do he goes to water. Ok, thank you. Yes, I agree on all points. As I have said on countless occasions before, I am a centrist a swinging voter, I have voted Liberal 4 times, Labor 3, so it's nearly even. I don't think that Abbott is PM material either, but he will be no worse than Gillard. Both are terrible choices, in my view. How do you feel? Exactly the same only Abbot's front bench scares me alot more than Labors. Labor may leave a debt but at least they don't encourage & pander to the lowest common denominators in our society. Why? I don't see how the Coalition pander to the LCD more than Labor, either. Could you kindly elaborate?

If your happy for important issues to be reduced to 3 word slogans and repeated infintium.

If your happy for the opposition front bench to go on Sunrise and Today for puff pieces instead of crediable serious news and political shows, as pointed out by Barry Cassidy today on Insiders

"There has been remarks made and letters appearing in newspapers about the fact that we have had 7 shows WITHOUT a member for the opposition appearing, it's not for lack of trying we have requested every week, we are desparate,  we even told Abbott's office this week we'll take anyone, yet no luck"

Watch for yourself it's within the 1st 5 minutes, the opening segment.

If your happy for the leader of the opposition to say one thing to a 2GB shockjock and his audience and then another to the parliament about the same issue, as pointed out in the thread on Palmer's high court challenge.

Your mind seems already made up John, no matter your voting record.

Then again so is mine, I never vote for an Abbott lead coalition, however if they get rid of him and actually become the Liberal party again, I vote for them in a heartbeat.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 9:27pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 11:25am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 6:22pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 6:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:11pm: john_g wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 4:53pm: What do you mean he ignored the policy? Please be more specific here, in what regard do you mean? Sorry,  thought I was being reasonably clear. Rudd in 07 very publicly campaigned on bringing an ETS in. He was elected with a majority, which in this day and age is seen as a mandate. The Greens opposed his model as not strong enough so therefore he negotiated it through with the coalition. Abbott encouraged by Mitchen and the Nationals then took his chance and knocked off Turnbull as leader, and scrapped the deal, effectively thumbing his nose at the majority of Australian voters and the mandate given to Rudd. I personally think Abbott would/is a reasonable pollie, if you need someone to pull others into line or doggedly pursue a policy his the one, he's just not a leader or PM he needs to be directed, shown a target. Which in a way is a reason his doing so well, his target is Gillard but when we start asking what he'll do he goes to water. Ok, thank you. Yes, I agree on all points. As I have said on countless occasions before, I am a centrist a swinging voter, I have voted Liberal 4 times, Labor 3, so it's nearly even. I don't think that Abbott is PM material either, but he will be no worse than Gillard. Both are terrible choices, in my view. How do you feel? Exactly the same only Abbot's front bench scares me alot more than Labors. Labor may leave a debt but at least they don't encourage & pander to the lowest common denominators in our society. Why? I don't see how the Coalition pander to the LCD more than Labor, either. Could you kindly elaborate? If your happy for important issues to be reduced to 3 word slogans and repeated infintium. If your happy for the opposition front bench to go on Sunrise and Today for puff pieces instead of crediable serious news and political shows, as pointed out by Barry Cassidy today on Insiders "There has been remarks made and letters appearing in newspapers about the fact that we have had 7 shows WITHOUT a member for the opposition appearing, it's not for lack of trying we have requested every week, we are desparate,  we even told Abbott's office this week we'll take anyone, yet no luck" Watch for yourself it's within the 1st 5 minutes, the opening segment. Your mind seems already made up John, no matter your voting record. Then again so is mine, I never vote for an Abbott lead coalition, however if they get rid of him and actually become the Liberal party again, I vote for them in a heartbeat.

Smithy, I assume that you are 41 or so, being that you have a 70 after your name? I am the same age, and am a centrist. Others seem to think that you are too. I have not seen enough of your posts to know for sure, but I think that you are in the centre, but lean a little towards the left. The reason that I raise this, is to ask, if you like me, you are a swinging voter?

Yes, my mind is indeed made up. There is not a 0.1% chance that I am voting for Labor. I MAY vote Liberal, if they impress me enough beforehand. Odds are though, that I will be voting informally.

As for the Insiders, I watch it some of the time, but I didn't catch that episode. that's weak if no Coalition members have accpeted to go on the program, but I am sure that the reverse has been true for Labor members on particular shows, though I cannot name a specific example. The Coalition have been using short slogans far too much, I agree, but to be fair, it's working in their favour. I hope that it doesn't sound like I am defending them, as I am no fan at the moment. I just view them as the lesser of two evils.

john_g wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 10:27pm:

Smithy, I assume that you are 41 or so, being that you have a 70 after your name? I am the same age, and am a centrist. Others seem to think that you are too. I have not seen enough of your posts to know for sure, but I think that you are in the centre, but lean a little towards the left. The reason that I raise this, is to ask, if you like me, you are a swinging voter? Yes, my mind is indeed made up. There is not a 0.1% chance that I am voting for Labor. I MAY vote Liberal, if they impress me enough beforehand. Odds are though, that I will be voting informally.

You are 100% percent with your accessment, I do like your idea of informal, but then I remember I argue that if you don't vote you can't whinge, so will cast a valid ballot, more than likely for the Greens at this stage.
That left lean you detected ;)

Further on the informal idea.

I would urge you to reconsider, informal votes will be factered into Abbott's stragey.

He knows if he can capture enough of traditional labor voters, those barely keeping their head above water by dumbing down of issues by the examples I provided , we know often income in some way equates to intelligence, and enough of swinging voters who are comfortable but  jaded enough to throw away their voice he will be that much further ahead.

Polls sh!t me I rarely even bother reading the weekly thread on the latest bee's dick shift,(usually within the margin of error) but the 2PP is only somewhere around 3%, close enough that informals playing a roll is not out of the question.

Surely there is some Independent or Green or whatever that you can at least cast a joke ballot for making sure their preferences put the 2 majors close to the bottom.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

john_g wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 10:27pm: Smithy, I assume that you are 41 or so, being that you have a 70 after your name? I am the same age, and am a centrist. Others seem to think that you are too. I have not seen enough of your posts to know for sure, but I think that you are in the centre, but lean a little towards the left. The reason that I raise this, is to ask, if you like me, you are a swinging voter? Yes, my mind is indeed made up. There is not a 0.1% chance that I am voting for Labor. I MAY vote Liberal, if they impress me enough beforehand. Odds are though, that I will be voting informally. You are 100% percent with your accessment, I do like your idea of informal, but then I remember I argue that if you don't vote you can't whinge, so will cast a valid ballot, more than likely for the Greens at this stage. That left lean you detected ;)

I'm glad that my analysis was spot-on.  ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:14pm:

Further on the informal idea. I would urge you to reconsider, informal votes will be factered into Abbott's stragey. He knows if he can capture enough of traditional labor voters, those barely keeping their head above water by dumbing down of issues by the examples I provided , we know often income in some way equates to intelligence, and enough of swinging voters who are comfortable but  jaded enough to throw away their voice he will be that much further ahead. Polls sh!t me I rarely even bother reading the weekly thread on the latest bee's dick shift,(usually within the margin of error) but the 2PP is only somewhere around 3%, close enough that informals playing a roll is not out of the question. Surely there is some Independent or Green or whatever that you can at least cast a joke ballot for making sure their preferences put the 2 majors close to the bottom.

I understand what you're saying, but I do not see any point in voting Green. It's their fault that we have the carbon tax in the first place, and a vote for them is essentially a vote for Labor, at any rate. I see them and Labor as pretty much the same entity. In my electorate, no one runs in the Lower House except the three. I MAY vote for Bronwyn Bishop, but there's no chance that Labor or Greens are getting my vote. It's Bishop/Liberal or independent. As for the Senate, I will have to review all of the parties, and hope that I find a decent one.