http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/18644973/labor-had-no-carbon-tax-mandate-rudd/

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has admitted Labor did not have a mandate from voters to introduce a carbon tax.

During the 2010 election campaign, former prime minister Julia Gillard ruled out a carbon tax under her government.

But she went on to introduce a fixed price on carbon pollution, with plans to move to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.

Mr Rudd said in the past Labor governments "had got a number of things wrong".

"For example, I don't think our actions on the carbon tax were right, that's why I changed it to move towards a floating price," he told ABC TV on Sunday.

"To begin with, we didn't have a mandate for it."

Mr Rudd was asked whether Opposition Leader Tony Abbott would have a mandate to repeal the carbon tax if he wins the September 7 election.

"I'm in the business of taking the argument up with the Australian people as to why the government should be returned," he told reporters in Canberra.

"The core element here is that we believe climate change is real."

Mr Rudd said Mr Abbott over many years had made statements to the contrary.

"His so-called direct action plan is a piece of camouflage," he said.

Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt seized on Mr Rudd's comment.
"Kevin Rudd today finally admitted that Labor betrayed the Australian people," he said.

BEST THING RUDD HAS EVER SAID AND ABOUT THE FIRST HONEST THING.

longweekend58

I read that article earlier, it was a very dumb thing to say.

Rudd was kind of forced into in this by his anti-Gillard strategy, when he took over he went to great pains to pretend that this was a new ALP and attacked Gillard's legacy, this is just a logical extension and more proof Rudd has two enemies to fight, the ALP and the coalition.

Also it is an elephant in the room, there are three really big ones the ALP try to hide:

1) They lied about the carbon tax
2) The lost control of the borders
3) They proved they are economic idiots

Beyond that there are numerous medium sized ones and a whole herd of small ones.

Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe

Maqqa

So Howard went to an election saying he would introduce a GST and won with an improved majority, the ALP claimed he had no mandate.

Gillard lied about a Carbon tax, had an election draw ..... but they claim they had a mandate ?

I can see why Rudd is back pedalling for the ALP on that one.

Oh thats just great, isnt it, didnt Kevin Rudd gave his blessing on the day when the carbon tax was passed by planting an awkward kiss on Juliar on the cheeks after it was passed into legislation in parliament

And now all of sudden he now says that it was all wrong that labor didnt properly get the mandate ????  >:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P8tB1FeY7A

I mean Rudd was celebrating right there when it was passed

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

Maqqa So Howard went to an election saying he would introduce a GST and won with an improved majority, the ALP claimed he had no mandate. Gillard lied about a Carbon tax, had an election draw ..... but they claim they had a mandate ? I can see why Rudd is back pedalling for the ALP on that one.

In 2007 - Rudd adopt the "admit and take the damage" approach which worked well

I recall the strip-joint visit, eating ear-wax etc.

But those tactics are wearing thin - people are simply not believing him anymore

So this admission is designed to paint him as "honest" but people are not listening

stryder wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

Oh thats just great, isnt it, didnt Kevin Rudd gave his blessing on the day when the carbon tax was passed by planting an awkward kiss on Juliar on the cheeks after it was passed into legislation in parliament And now all of sudden he now says that it was all wrong that labor didnt properly get the mandate ????  >:( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P8tB1FeY7A I mean Rudd was celebrating right there when it was passed

Rudd isn't exactly renowned for a principled position on ANYTHING.

Maqqa

But Rudd 2.0 is making far more obvious lies then Rudd 1.0

The guy is seriously regressing, he must have early onset alzheimer's

do you think he is now trying to get out of the CARBON TAX ETS TAX call it what you will...

maybe the message has got through even to him..

WE ARE WASTING OUT TIME......dont worry about the cost..

it has gone off the radar..

. and how CLIMATE CHANGE can be PANIC STATIONS one day...and NEVER HEARD OF AGAIN the next I DONT KNOW.....

even on the boards its gone off the radar.. almost no one is talking about it?????????

could that be because nothing is happening even though we get told how every country out there bar us is doing so much to stop the Snowy mountain becoming the Sandy mountain...[he.he.].... when bugger all changes....

when ex PM go out and buy beachside homes.. and AL Gore owns more ocean view properties than we can even dream about...its ludicrous to say the least..

weve been conned and maybe kevvie has just seen the light!!

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Maqqa But Rudd 2.0 is making far more obvious lies then Rudd 1.0 The guy is seriously regressing, he must have early onset alzheimer's

no fred he is hoping all us voters have that problem....

short memories..lol..

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

1) They lied about the carbon tax

We don't have a carbon tax.  We have a price on carbon with a 3 year fixed price period.
And Gillard went to the last election saying it would provide a mandate for a price on carbon

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price
http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000


RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

2) The lost control of the borders

Don't be silly.

We have some 4 million entries to this country every year.  Of these - some 25,000 are unauthorised

0.7%.

THis means some 99.3% of all entries to this country are authorised.

And you call 99.3% - "lost control of the borders"!!!
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html

And don't forget - the vast majority of the 0.7% of unauthorised entries are completely legal, bonafide asylum seekers.


RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

3) They proved they are economic idiots

How did they do this?

By giving Australia triple A ratings with all 3 major credit agencies, keeping Australia out of recession and giving Australia one of the lowest debts in the developed world!?!!?

You really are very gullible, aren't you.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe

Didn't Labor form a coalition with another party that went to the election with a policy for a carbon tax? Wouldn't that give the party concerned some sort of mandate? That party being part of the government, wouldn't that give the government a mandate?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:29pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 1) They lied about the carbon tax We don't have a carbon tax.  We have a price on carbon with a 3 year fixed price period. And Gillard went to the last election saying it would provide a mandate for a price on carbon In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000 RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 2) The lost control of the borders Don't be silly. We have some 4 million entries to this country every year.  Of these - some 25,000 are unauthorised 0.7%. THis means some 99.3% of all entries to this country are authorised. And you call 99.3% - "lost control of the borders"!!! http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html And don't forget - the vast majority of the 0.7% of unauthorised entries are completely legal, bonafide asylum seekers. RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 3) They proved they are economic idiots How did they do this? By giving Australia triple A ratings with all 3 major credit agencies, keeping Australia out of recession and giving Australia one of the lowest debts in the developed world!?!!? You really are very gullible, aren't you.

So you are disagreeing with your messiah, Kev the Con?

how unsurprising.

# wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe Didn't Labor form a coalition with another party that went to the election with a policy for a carbon tax? Wouldn't that give the party concerned some sort of mandate? That party being part of the government, wouldn't that give the government a mandate?

that's the best excuse Ive seen yet. Congrats.  OF course the party that gets 39% of the vote gets excluded while the party that gets 11% gets the nod.  Makes perfect sense.

Gillard didn't need the Greens to form govt as that was in the bag.  And she didn't need them to pass legislation in the senate as they mostly voted against her bills anyhow.

and now the carbon tax is set to be repealed.  Keve the Con has already admitted that there is no mandate for it!

cods wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

do you think he is now trying to get out of the CARBON TAX ETS TAX call it what you will...

What do you call Tony's GREAT BIG CARBON TAX?

Where he will pay between $4billion and $15billion of tax payer money to big polluters?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/theres-a-hole-in-the-coalitions-climatechange-policy-20130819-2s6dd.html

Or Tony's GREAT BIG BABY TAX?
Where he will tax businesses $5.5billion a year so that millionaires can be paid to have babies?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalitions-paid-parentalleave-scheme-is-one-tax-big-business-can-afford-20130824-2sien.html

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:29pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 1) They lied about the carbon tax We don't have a carbon tax.  We have a price on carbon with a 3 year fixed price period. And Gillard went to the last election saying it would provide a mandate for a price on carbon In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000 RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 2) The lost control of the borders Don't be silly. We have some 4 million entries to this country every year.  Of these - some 25,000 are unauthorised 0.7%. THis means some 99.3% of all entries to this country are authorised. And you call 99.3% - "lost control of the borders"!!! http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html And don't forget - the vast majority of the 0.7% of unauthorised entries are completely legal, bonafide asylum seekers. RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 3) They proved they are economic idiots How did they do this? By giving Australia triple A ratings with all 3 major credit agencies, keeping Australia out of recession and giving Australia one of the lowest debts in the developed world!?!!? You really are very gullible, aren't you. So you are disagreeing with your messiah, Kev the Con? how unsurprising.

Yes - I am disagreeing with, Kev the Con?

But when did he become my "messiah"?
I didn't vote for him or his party.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:29pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 1) They lied about the carbon tax We don't have a carbon tax.  We have a price on carbon with a 3 year fixed price period. And Gillard went to the last election saying it would provide a mandate for a price on carbon In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000 RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 2) The lost control of the borders Don't be silly. We have some 4 million entries to this country every year.  Of these - some 25,000 are unauthorised 0.7%. THis means some 99.3% of all entries to this country are authorised. And you call 99.3% - "lost control of the borders"!!! http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html And don't forget - the vast majority of the 0.7% of unauthorised entries are completely legal, bonafide asylum seekers. RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 3) They proved they are economic idiots How did they do this? By giving Australia triple A ratings with all 3 major credit agencies, keeping Australia out of recession and giving Australia one of the lowest debts in the developed world!?!!? You really are very gullible, aren't you. So you are disagreeing with your messiah, Kev the Con? how unsurprising. Yes - I am disagreeing with, Kev the Con? But when did he become my "messiah"? I didn't vote for him or his party.

well the carbon tax is toast along with the ALP.

tough luck!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

... Gillard didn't need the Greens to form govt ...

You've been disabused of that notion before. Repeating it now is a lie.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

# wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe Didn't Labor form a coalition with another party that went to the election with a policy for a carbon tax? Wouldn't that give the party concerned some sort of mandate? That party being part of the government, wouldn't that give the government a mandate? that's the best excuse Ive seen yet. Congrats.  OF course the party that gets 39% of the vote gets excluded while the party that gets 11% gets the nod.  Makes perfect sense. Gillard didn't need the Greens to form govt as that was in the bag.  And she didn't need them to pass legislation in the senate as they mostly voted against her bills anyhow. and now the carbon tax is set to be repealed.  Keve the Con has already admitted that there is no mandate for it!

After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax

I do wish we would "un-ratify" Kyoto

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:29pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 1) They lied about the carbon tax We don't have a carbon tax.  We have a price on carbon with a 3 year fixed price period. And Gillard went to the last election saying it would provide a mandate for a price on carbon In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000 RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 2) The lost control of the borders Don't be silly. We have some 4 million entries to this country every year.  Of these - some 25,000 are unauthorised 0.7%. THis means some 99.3% of all entries to this country are authorised. And you call 99.3% - "lost control of the borders"!!! http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html And don't forget - the vast majority of the 0.7% of unauthorised entries are completely legal, bonafide asylum seekers. RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 3) They proved they are economic idiots How did they do this? By giving Australia triple A ratings with all 3 major credit agencies, keeping Australia out of recession and giving Australia one of the lowest debts in the developed world!?!!? You really are very gullible, aren't you. So you are disagreeing with your messiah, Kev the Con? how unsurprising. Yes - I am disagreeing with, Kev the Con? But when did he become my "messiah"? I didn't vote for him or his party. well the carbon tax is toast along with the ALP. tough luck!!!

No - it isn't.

Even if he were to control the Senate - Tony will only replace carbon pricing with his own GREAT BIG CARBON TAX

If you really insist on call carbon pricing a tax - you would also have to concede that the Liberals Direct Action is also a "carbon tax".  They will use tax money to pay to polluters.  How is that not a "Carbon Tax"?

And as for his GREAT BIG BABY TAX - that is actually a tax.  A 1.5% tax on 3,200 business.

.........the greatest moral challenge of our time............

aside from voting the alp off the planet

I think this will backfire on Rudd

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

Maqqa So Howard went to an election saying he would introduce a GST and won with an improved majority, the ALP claimed he had no mandate. Gillard lied about a Carbon tax, had an election draw ..... but they claim they had a mandate ? I can see why Rudd is back pedalling for the ALP on that one.

Howard was lucky to sneak over the line in that election with 49% of the vote against almost no opposition.

I don't think that Labor said he had no mandate it was everyone else. Howard only ever became PM on the basis that he had committed to never ever introduce a GST.

Gillard broke her commitment to not introduce a tax, it wasn't a Lie.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:33pm: # wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe Didn't Labor form a coalition with another party that went to the election with a policy for a carbon tax? Wouldn't that give the party concerned some sort of mandate? That party being part of the government, wouldn't that give the government a mandate? that's the best excuse Ive seen yet. Congrats.  OF course the party that gets 39% of the vote gets excluded while the party that gets 11% gets the nod.  Makes perfect sense. Gillard didn't need the Greens to form govt as that was in the bag.  And she didn't need them to pass legislation in the senate as they mostly voted against her bills anyhow. and now the carbon tax is set to be repealed.  Keve the Con has already admitted that there is no mandate for it! After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax I do wish we would "un-ratify" Kyoto

So, if Abbott gets in but does not abolish the ETS, because the Senate wont let him - will you be calling him a liar?

He says:
TONY Abbott started campaigning today by pledging that the first thing he will do when elected, would be to scrap the carbon tax legislation should he win the September 7 Australian election.

Will he be a liar when he doesn't do this?

And how about when he introduces his own GREAT BIG CARBON TAX - and uses tax money to pay polluters.  Will you be calling him a liar then?  Why is an ETS a "carbon tax", but using tax money to pay to polluters is not a "carbon tax"?  Can you explain?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:29pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 1) They lied about the carbon tax We don't have a carbon tax.  We have a price on carbon with a 3 year fixed price period. And Gillard went to the last election saying it would provide a mandate for a price on carbon In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000 It's a tax, live with it. RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 2) The lost control of the borders Don't be silly. We have some 4 million entries to this country every year.  Of these - some 25,000 are unauthorised 0.7%. THis means some 99.3% of all entries to this country are authorised. And you call 99.3% - "lost control of the borders"!!! http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html And don't forget - the vast majority of the 0.7% of unauthorised entries are completely legal, bonafide asylum seekers. How many people were in detention when Rudd came to power? That's right - four. How many since then? That's right - more than 50,000. There's also been more than 1,500 deaths at sea. The cost of dealing with this issue has blown out from less than $100m per year to almost $2bn per year. Labor HAS lost control of the borders to people smugglers. RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:38pm: 3) They proved they are economic idiots How did they do this? By giving Australia triple A ratings with all 3 major credit agencies, keeping Australia out of recession and giving Australia one of the lowest debts in the developed world!?!!? You really are very gullible, aren't you. They took a $22bn surplus and have turned it into a debt of nearly $300bn after raising the debt ceiling twice so they can continue with their reckless spending/borrowing , thanks to policies that run over budget and are rorted to no end. One deficit after the other, all forward estimated have been wrong by hundreds of millions of dollars. Lets not forget the mining tax. It raked in zero in the first six months, yet the government had already spent money it expected to get from that tax - borrowed money. Labor are economic vandals and Swan was far and away the worst Treasurer this country has ever seen. Time to take those beer goggles off your eyes!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:33pm: # wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe Didn't Labor form a coalition with another party that went to the election with a policy for a carbon tax? Wouldn't that give the party concerned some sort of mandate? That party being part of the government, wouldn't that give the government a mandate? that's the best excuse Ive seen yet. Congrats.  OF course the party that gets 39% of the vote gets excluded while the party that gets 11% gets the nod.  Makes perfect sense. Gillard didn't need the Greens to form govt as that was in the bag.  And she didn't need them to pass legislation in the senate as they mostly voted against her bills anyhow. and now the carbon tax is set to be repealed.  Keve the Con has already admitted that there is no mandate for it! After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax I do wish we would "un-ratify" Kyoto So, if Abbott gets in but does not abolish the ETS, because the Senate wont let him - will you be calling him a liar? He says: TONY Abbott started campaigning today by pledging that the first thing he will do when elected, would be to scrap the carbon tax legislation should he win the September 7 Australian election. Will he be a liar when he doesn't do this? And how about when he introduces his own GREAT BIG CARBON TAX - and uses tax money to pay polluters.  Will you be calling him a liar then?  Why is an ETS a "carbon tax", but using tax money to pay to polluters is not a "carbon tax"?  Can you explain?

why would it be a LIE???.. can you explain.???

if he is stopped by the senate how is that HIS FAULT.. canyou explain?


WHAT GREAT BIG CARBON TAX IS TONY GOING TO INTRODUCE?   can you explain that?


its almost impossible to answer questions that make no sense.



GILLARD BTW SAID.. THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX ETC.ETC.


AND THEN BY HER OWN FAIR HAND DID THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE.... JUST TO APPEASE THE GREENS......WHO CONTROLLED THE SENATE...........IS THAT REALLY WHAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR IN 2010?... can you explain?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Maqqa So Howard went to an election saying he would introduce a GST and won with an improved majority, the ALP claimed he had no mandate. Gillard lied about a Carbon tax, had an election draw ..... but they claim they had a mandate ? I can see why Rudd is back pedalling for the ALP on that one. Howard was lucky to sneak over the line in that election with 49% of the vote against almost no opposition. I don't think that Labor said he had no mandate it was everyone else. Howard only ever became PM on the basis that he had committed to never ever introduce a GST. Gillard broke her commitment to not introduce a tax, it wasn't a Lie.

now you are saying rudd didnt say it..LOL.. first gillard now rudd.. never ever sat what they say..... go figure.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 9:25pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:33pm: # wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Most of his cabinet have said they have a mandate - so who do we believe Didn't Labor form a coalition with another party that went to the election with a policy for a carbon tax? Wouldn't that give the party concerned some sort of mandate? That party being part of the government, wouldn't that give the government a mandate? that's the best excuse Ive seen yet. Congrats.  OF course the party that gets 39% of the vote gets excluded while the party that gets 11% gets the nod.  Makes perfect sense. Gillard didn't need the Greens to form govt as that was in the bag.  And she didn't need them to pass legislation in the senate as they mostly voted against her bills anyhow. and now the carbon tax is set to be repealed.  Keve the Con has already admitted that there is no mandate for it! After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax I do wish we would "un-ratify" Kyoto So, if Abbott gets in but does not abolish the ETS, because the Senate wont let him - will you be calling him a liar? He says: TONY Abbott started campaigning today by pledging that the first thing he will do when elected, would be to scrap the carbon tax legislation should he win the September 7 Australian election. Will he be a liar when he doesn't do this? And how about when he introduces his own GREAT BIG CARBON TAX - and uses tax money to pay polluters.  Will you be calling him a liar then?  Why is an ETS a "carbon tax", but using tax money to pay to polluters is not a "carbon tax"?  Can you explain? why would it be a LIE???.. can you explain.??? if he is stopped by the senate how is that HIS FAULT.. canyou explain?

Exactly.  Gillard was forced to add a 3 year fixed price period to the carbon pricing promise she took to the election out of necessity of gaining the Green support in a minority Government.

You seem to think this was a "lie".

Tony has promised to scrap the "tax".  But he will not repeal the ETS.  It will never happen  He must be a liar.


cods wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

WHAT GREAT BIG CARBON TAX IS TONY GOING TO INTRODUCE?   can you explain that?

Direct Action.
$9 billion dollars of tax money to be paid to big polluters
How is that not a tax?
It is a new spending of tax receipts
It is a GREAT BIG TAX


But ignoring those problems, the SKM modelling conservatively estimated the ERF would pay an average of $24 a tonne for abatement up to 2020, by which time 370 million tonnes would need to be abated. That equates to almost $9 billion, or $4 billion more than what is to be allocated to the ERF.
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/20/mark-butler/how-much-direct-action-cost/


You want to keep calling an ETS a "tax".  How is using $9billion of tax money not a "tax"?



cods wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

GILLARD BTW SAID.. THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX ETC.ETC.

By "ETC ETC" - you mean Gillard said:
THere will be no carbon tax, but I am committed to putting a price on carbon

Which is exactly what she did.  We have no carbon tax - but we have a market-based price on carbon, but with a 3 year fixed price period which was added out of necessity of gaining the Green support in a minority Government.


cods wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:57am:

AND THEN BY HER OWN FAIR HAND DID THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE.... JUST TO APPEASE THE GREENS......WHO CONTROLLED THE SENATE...........IS THAT REALLY WHAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR IN 2010?... can you explain?

Yes - that is what people voted for in 2010

A majority of Australians voted for parties which went to the election with a commitment to put a price on carbon.
Labor was committed to putting a price on carbon
The Greens were committed to putting a price on carbon
Most of the independents supported putting a price on carbon

It was the commitment to put a price on carbon that the ALP took to the election that got them over the line to be able to form government.

However - in order to get legislation through the Senate - the ALP had to negotiate with the Greens, and a 3 year fixed price period was added to the ETS.

This is why I ask you - when Tony finds himself in EXACTLY the same position, and is forced to negotiate with The Greens to "scrap the tax" - will you call him a liar when he does not "scrap the tax". 

Because he won't.  Australia will continue to have an ETS.  Tony's 3-word-slogan is just hot air.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 7:57am:

Yes - that is what people voted for in 2010 A majority of Australians voted for parties which went to the election with a commitment to put a price on carbon. Labor was committed to putting a price on carbon The Greens were committed to putting a price on carbon

how can you possibly claim that???.. that is such a BIG ASK>. since when does anyone vote for something that was all the go in the previous election???>.. it doesnt happen... and now even rudd claims they didnt have a mandate .


if people REALLY WANTED IT the GREENS VOTE WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ROOF>>>


AS IT IS THEY ONLY GOT ONE SEAT THANKS TO PREFERENCES ON THE LOWER HOUSE...

and they look like ,losing it this time round....

you really believe that tripe dont you?

cods wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:59am:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 9:16pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Maqqa So Howard went to an election saying he would introduce a GST and won with an improved majority, the ALP claimed he had no mandate. Gillard lied about a Carbon tax, had an election draw ..... but they claim they had a mandate ? I can see why Rudd is back pedalling for the ALP on that one. Howard was lucky to sneak over the line in that election with 49% of the vote against almost no opposition. I don't think that Labor said he had no mandate it was everyone else. Howard only ever became PM on the basis that he had committed to never ever introduce a GST. Gillard broke her commitment to not introduce a tax, it wasn't a Lie. now you are saying rudd didnt say it..LOL.. first gillard now rudd.. never ever sat what they say..... go figure..

Sorry Cods but I have no idea what you are talking about .

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ...

All talk of mandates is crap. We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things.

Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

cods wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:59am: Dnarever wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 9:16pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 6:43pm: Maqqa So Howard went to an election saying he would introduce a GST and won with an improved majority, the ALP claimed he had no mandate. Gillard lied about a Carbon tax, had an election draw ..... but they claim they had a mandate ? I can see why Rudd is back pedalling for the ALP on that one. Howard was lucky to sneak over the line in that election with 49% of the vote against almost no opposition. I don't think that Labor said he had no mandate it was everyone else. Howard only ever became PM on the basis that he had committed to never ever introduce a GST. Gillard broke her commitment to not introduce a tax, it wasn't a Lie. now you are saying rudd didnt say it..LOL.. first gillard now rudd.. never ever sat what they say..... go figure.. Sorry Cods but I have no idea what you are talking about .

that's OK, neither does she!  ;D ;D

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: ... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ... All talk of mandates is crap. We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things. Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies.

... said the disgruntled voter who still yearns for more cuddles from mummy!

Quote:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has admitted Labor did not have a mandate from voters to introduce a carbon tax. During the 2010 election campaign, former prime minister Julia Gillard ruled out a carbon tax under her government. But Instead, she went on to introduce a fixed price on carbon pollution, with plans to move to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.

Well, that seems pretty CLEAR to ME
- as I understand English

different works, same effect.

it is ruddspeak

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

# wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:41am: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: ... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ... All talk of mandates is crap. We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things. Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies. ... said the disgruntled voter who still yearns for more cuddles from mummy!

Clearly, Armchair_Politician likes to participate in the mutual masturbation that is mandate politics.

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: ... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ... All talk of mandates is crap.We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things. Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies.

I'm pretty much over this whole "mandate" thing, MYSELF
As the LibNats seem pretty much a cert - this election - does that mean they have a "mandate" on EVERY election policy ?

Including scrapping the low income families' "Schoolkids Bonus" scheme - to help fund the high income families' "Paid Parental Leave" scheme ?



A lot of LibNat voters from the working class western suburbs may be surprised to HEAR about this "mandate"

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

# wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:41am: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: ... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ... All talk of mandates is crap.We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things. Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies. I'm pretty much over this whole "mandate" thing, MYSELF As the LibNats seem pretty much a cert - this election - does that mean they have a "mandate" on EVERY election policy ? Including scrapping the low income families' "Schoolkids Bonus" scheme - to help fund the high income families' "Paid Parental Leave" scheme ? A lot of LibNat voters from the working class western suburbs may be surprised to HEAR about this "mandate"

no you simply cannot cope with the notion of a mandate that might ethically require a party to support something the people want but YOU don't.

Mandates are fairly simple beasts if you have to necessary integrity and hopelessly complex if you don't.

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: ... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ... All talk of mandates is crap. We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things. Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies.

#

What absolute poppy cock.

If a political party says its going to do something gets elected and does such its perfectly acceptable.

Based on your dumbar$e logic a party should go into an election saying what they going to do then do nothing.

If a party makes a clear pitch then gets elected then sure they can push through that pitch.

Clearly you prefer lying grubs like Rudd and gillard.

longweekend58

I will be in that boat with the PPL, I despise social engineering nanny state sh!t like this but the Libs have been very clear on doing it and defending the idea, if the voters hate that idea (and other lib ideas) more than they hate the ALP then they will vote ALP.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

longweekend58 I will be in that boat with the PPL, I despise social engineering nanny state sh!t like this but the Libs have been very clear on doing it and defending the idea, if the voters hate that idea (and other lib ideas) more than they hate the ALP then they will vote ALP.

IM not a fan of it either but I don't get to vote for a designer government that agrees with all my beliefs ideologies and prejudices.  And that said, my opposition to PPL is on COST, not principle.  I see no problem with people getting a reward in some way commensurate to their contribution.  But that doesn't mean it is affordable.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 1:38pm: # wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:41am: Maqqa wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:44pm: ... After this election - there will be a mandate for abolishing the carbon tax ... All talk of mandates is crap.We vote for which ever mob we least dislike. That doesn't mean we're giving them a "mandate" for everything they say they want to do. It just means we dislike fewer of those things. Basically, we're saying that we give whatever the opposite of a mandate is (denial? veto?)  for fewer of their policies. I'm pretty much over this whole "mandate" thing, MYSELF As the LibNats seem pretty much a cert - this election - does that mean they have a "mandate" on EVERY election policy ? Including scrapping the low income families' "Schoolkids Bonus" scheme - to help fund the high income families' "Paid Parental Leave" scheme ? A lot of LibNat voters from the working class western suburbs may be surprised to HEAR about this "mandate" no you simply cannot cope with the notion of a mandate that might ethically require a party to support something the people want but YOU don't.

Tony Abbott's insistence that the election will be a ''referendum on the carbon tax'' has been undermined by polling showing just a third of voters support the Coalition's plan to abolish the tax.

Fewer voters want to see the carbon tax removed now than before it took effect on July 1 last year.

Nearly half the voters, or 48 per cent, wanted the tax scrapped a year ago.

But a poll of 1009 people, conducted by JWS Research for the Climate Institute, found just 37 per cent of them now supported the Coalition's intention to wind the tax back in favour of its ''Direct Action'' policy, which involves paying companies to reduce emissions.
Even fewer people - 34 per cent - would back an Abbott government calling a double dissolution election to fulfil its ''pledge in blood'' to repeal the tax.

Less than half the Coalition voters would back Mr Abbott taking Australia back to the polls.

JWS pollster John Scales said the Opposition Leader had failed to convince people carbon pricing should be scrapped because two-thirds of Australians believed climate change was real.

Climate change believers accounted for 66 per cent of voters compared with 64 per cent a year ago.

Mr Scales said: ''The Coalition's complaint that everyone wants to get rid of the carbon tax is not backed up by the numbers.''


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fewer-voters-want-carbon-tax-axed-20130622-2opby.html#ixzz2dTVsjqKI



A national Fairfax Nielsen Poll conducted from Sunday, August 18, to Thursday, August 22, surveyed 2545 people across the country and found support growing for legalised marriage equality.

Sixty-five per cent of respondents supported legalising marriage between same-sex couples, up 8 points since December 2011, while only 28 per cent were opposed (down 7 points).

Support was greater among women (75 per cent) than men (55 per cent) and greater among younger voters than older voters.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/gay-marriage-support-up-but-it-wont-change-poll-20130824-2si1q.html#ixzz2dTXTJdyB