Carbon tax to blame for loss, says Bill Kelty


FORMER ACTU secretary Bill Kelty has accused Labor of underestimating Tony Abbott for years declaring the party's breach of trust with voters over the carbon tax was a bigger cause of its defeat than the disunity cited by senior ALP figures. , 
 
Mr Kelty, who is backing Bill Shorten in the mould of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating to become the next ALP leader, said the seeds for last Saturday's loss could be traced back to the failure of Labor to explain to voters why Kevin Rudd was dumped in favour of Julia Gillard in 2010.

"To be honest, I think they lost the election in two points of history," Mr Kelty said.

"They didn't ever explain the change of leadership from Rudd to Gillard. Therefore they didn't lose the next election, but they didn't win it either. So there goes that first downward trend. People couldn't understand why it wasn't explained to them.

"Second, when Julia Gillard actually announced the Greens policy (of introducing a carbon tax), people saw it as a breach of faith, a breach of trust. When people have come to a view that they don't trust you, when you have broken a commitment to them, when enough people believe that, it gives them a great opportunity therefore not to be interested in politics, they just wait until the next election."

Mr Kelty's frank assessment contrasts with a raft of senior Labor MPs, including Tony Burke, Tanya Plibersek and Greg Combet, who have primarily blamed Labor's defeat on the leadership instability and party division.

Mr Kelty said when trust was lost between a government and voters over broken policy commitments, "You can see it".

"With Paul Keating, it was after the budget in 1993. People said: 'I think you have broken our commitment of trust, it's very hard for us to vote for you,' " he said. "When Anna Bligh decided to sell assets and she didn't explain it to the electorate beforehand, then it broke that covenant of trust.

"All the other things don't matter. When that essential covenant of trust between the electorate and those who are elected is broken, it's very, very hard to rebuild."

Asked about senior Labor MPs citing disunity for the defeat, he said: "You just think when that essential covenant of trust is broken, don't blame the media, don't blame all these petty divisions, always look for the fundamental cause. I think you learn in politics that the last thing you break is the covenant of trust."


The australian; Erwin hannan, industrial editor

Mr Kelty said Labor had underestimated Mr Abbott "for some years (and) you should never underestimate your opposition".

"Abbott has a lot of ability and works very hard," he said. "I think the best way to deal with Abbott is to deal with him honestly, combatively and fairly, and recognise his talent and work hard at it - the same way Abbott did against Rudd.

"If you want a lesson, then some of the lessons you get in life is that Howard stood up to Bob (Hawke), and to Paul Keating. He never beat them, in a sense, but he was a campaigner against them, was honorable, and he just worked assiduously at it."

He did not want to be critical of Anthony Albanese but believed Mr Shorten was better-placed to be the next leader.

"If the party wants to look to the next generation, look to the next generation, and I think Shorten is more of the next generation," he said.

Mr Shorten was an "old-fashioned leader, in the sense, that he is more Hawke, and more Keating, and more traditional Labor". "I think he's got to that point in his life where I think he has the maturity and the responsibility to lead the Labor Party," Mr Kelty said.

The process of opening up the leadership to party members had its advantages and disadvantages but "there's no point complaining about it".

'It gives the party an opportunity to give a legitimacy to a new leader," he said.

Considering that it was the unions factions that wanted Rudd replaced by Gillard, what else would you expect them to say.

I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself

He is not really correct though the way it was used had an impact.

stryder wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 8:45am:

I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself

yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself.

If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ...

John Smith

Sure Gillard lied about the tax that most don't want, but the fact she lied about does not mean most wanted it like your dumb logic is trying to suggest.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

John Smith Sure Gillard lied about the tax that most don't want, but the fact she lied about does not mean most wanted it like your dumb logic is trying to suggest.

I didn't say most wanted it .... If I'd wanted to suggest that I would have said so.

All I am saying is that by the time the election came around I don't think most people cared enough about the carbon tax for it to have been the determining factor

John Smith wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 8:52am:

stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ...

And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D

Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ???

stryder


Quote:

"Abbott has a lot of ability and works very hard," he said. "I think the best way to deal with Abbott is to deal with him honestly, combatively and fairly, and recognise his talent and work hard at it - the same way Abbott did against Rudd. "If you want a lesson, then some of the lessons you get in life is that Howard stood up to Bob (Hawke), and to Paul Keating. He never beat them, in a sense, but he was a campaigner against them, was honorable, and he just worked assiduously at it."

I have been saying this for years, the ALP listened to very short sighted spin doctors that seem to be ideologically retarded UK style hacks.

For reasons I don't get Abbott has slowly grown on people which has a lot to do with Gillard and Rudd which voters can no longer stand.

My mechanic lives south of me in Abbott's electorate, I was out to lunch with him and all his business mates who work in the area, one comment everyone agreed on is that you can like hate Abbott but he is something that an ALP leader will never be .... genuine.

John Smith wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:10am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:04am: John Smith Sure Gillard lied about the tax that most don't want, but the fact she lied about does not mean most wanted it like your dumb logic is trying to suggest. I didn't say most wanted it .... If I'd wanted to suggest that I would have said so. All I am saying is that by the time the election came around I don't think most people cared enough about the carbon tax for it to have been the determining factor

John Smith

So then you oppose democracy, you need to make your mind up. The ALP introduced a tax they lied about and the reason she lied is because people don't want it. The ALP introduced the tax and now the electorate no longer wants the ALP in power, in fact returned a historically low primary.

You can keep carrying on the way you do as it seems it is what you do, but then you get bent all out of shape when anyone points out your hypocrisy and flaws in you stupid argument.

You need to embrace your hypocrisy and stupidity, its seems to be all you have.

stryder wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:11am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:52am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ... And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ???

I'm not dismissive of anything, I just don't believe that Abbott won a mandate to do what he likes .. the people voted for a change in government, they also voted for a senate that would stop Abbott railroading his policies through ... why do you pretend that only the vote in the house of representatives matters and the vote in the senate can be dismissed ?   

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:19am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:10am: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:04am: John Smith Sure Gillard lied about the tax that most don't want, but the fact she lied about does not mean most wanted it like your dumb logic is trying to suggest. I didn't say most wanted it .... If I'd wanted to suggest that I would have said so. All I am saying is that by the time the election came around I don't think most people cared enough about the carbon tax for it to have been the determining factor John Smith So then you oppose democracy, you need to make your mind up. The ALP introduced a tax they lied about and the reason she lied is because people don't want it. The ALP introduced the tax and now the electorate no longer wants the ALP in power, in fact returned a historically low primary. You can keep carrying on the way you do as it seems it is what you do, but then you get bent all out of shape when anyone points out your hypocrisy and flaws in you stupid argument. You need to embrace your hypocrisy and stupidity, its seems to be all you have.

Is that how you hide your ignorance, by acting like a drama queen? ... the millions that voted for labor or the other parties do not get their votes dismissed just because the libs won ...

You keep repeating that libs won, that is not in dispute here. The argument is if you think they won because of the carbon tax or because of other reasons ... My opinion is that they won because of other reasons. I don't know of anyone, from either side of the fence, that voted based on the carbon tax ...

John Smith wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:52am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ... And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ??? I'm not dismissive of anything, I just don't believe that Abbott won a mandate to do what he likes .. the people voted for a change in government, they also voted for a senate that would stop Abbott railroading his policies through ... why do you pretend that only the vote in the house of representatives matters and the vote in the senate can be dismissed ?

Im not pretending anything, Abbott pretty much made it clear he wants to scrap the carbon tax he said it many times in slogans and sentences that people like yourself and lefties mocked, but Tony abbott won the trust of the australian people last saturday with that stated message repeated many times.

Quite frankly i believe the senate needs to be reformed as others as suggested to clearly stop the confusion of the measure of any mandate itself, will that happen is another thing.

stryder wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:23am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:52am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ... And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ??? I'm not dismissive of anything, I just don't believe that Abbott won a mandate to do what he likes .. the people voted for a change in government, they also voted for a senate that would stop Abbott railroading his policies through ... why do you pretend that only the vote in the house of representatives matters and the vote in the senate can be dismissed ?    Im not pretending anything, Abbott pretty much made it clear he wants to scrap the carbon tax he said it many times in slogans and sentences that people like yourself and lefties mocked, but Tony abbott won the trust of the australian people last saturday with that stated message repeated many times. and many of the senators also made clear their opposition to scrapping the carbon tax, and they won the trust of their electorates ... you seem to think that Abbotts vote is somehow worth more than anyone else voted in Quite frankly i believe the senate needs to be reformed as others as suggested to clearly stop the confusion of the measure of any mandate itself, will that happen is another thing.

Ohh, so it doesn't work to your liking so suddenly we change it? Why weren't you calling for a change when Rudd tried to pass his ETS?

The people didn't just vote for Abbott , they also voted for the senate ... for you to claim that only Abbotts vote count is pure ignorance of how our system works.

By the way, Mandates aren't real, it is purely something politicians invented to push through their agendas.

John Smith

You keep banging on the CT had nothing to do with the ALP defeat, your either a moron or you despise democracy.

You choose.

Your displaying the height of ignorance to suggest the CT had nothing to do with the ALP defeat.

Did not notice the greens vote going down either ?

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

John Smith You keep banging on the CT had nothing to do with the ALP defeat, your either a moron or you despise democracy. You choose. Your displaying the height of ignorance to suggest the CT had nothing to do with the ALP defeat. Did not notice the greens vote going down either ?

People based their votes on may issues ... the carbon tax, boat people, the economy, Gillard, Rudd, mining tax, PPS, the turmoil within the ALP, the surplus, the debt, pink batts, lies, mistrust, security   ...  for you to come out and pretend that everyone voted against labor because of the carbon tax just proves your head is stuck so far up your ar$e  you can see your eardrums.

As for the Greens, I used to like the greens, I even voted for a greens once, never again .... and it's not because of the carbon tax.

Quote:

By the way, Mandates aren't real, it is purely something politicians invented to push through their agendas

John smith

I think that is silly thing to say Johnny, but one which is worth remembering,  :D

stryder wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:23am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:52am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ... And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ??? I'm not dismissive of anything, I just don't believe that Abbott won a mandate to do what he likes .. the people voted for a change in government, they also voted for a senate that would stop Abbott railroading his policies through ... why do you pretend that only the vote in the house of representatives matters and the vote in the senate can be dismissed ?    Im not pretending anything, Abbott pretty much made it clear he wants to scrap the carbon tax he said it many times in slogans and sentences that people like yourself and lefties mocked, but Tony abbott won the trust of the australian people last saturday with that stated message repeated many times. Quite frankly i believe the senate needs to be reformed as others as suggested to clearly stop the confusion of the measure of any mandate itself, will that happen is another thing.

SO!!!! What Abbott wants and what Abbott wishes for doesn't mean that the people gave him a mandate for it.  You undermine your own power in a system which already gives you very little when you interpret a mandate so widely out of what happened in the last election.  Oh I can see a little tear in your eye and a tug to your heart strings when the Pollies tell you what a great democracy you have, but what do you have really.  A sH^t campaign based on character assassination, negativity and very little discussion of policy and then every 3 years you get to put a few numbers in a box against a persons name and afterwards they expect to say "See the majority of Australians authorised me to do everything I ever mentioned in the campaign". And all the while your joining in the chant "look at me, look at me I live in a great democracy where I decide, I'm free Im free".  Don't let them rob you of your power to have a genuine say in how your life and the lives of your family is run.  Many people who voted for Abbott in the House did not vote for him in the senate because they did not want the carbon tax repealed. Many people voted for Abbott because, for example, they believed the libs would be better economic managers but hate his proposed repeat of the carbon tax.  Looking at the election results will never tell you where the majority is with regard to any of these issues.  Our system is not designed to give or ascertain mandates.  If the pollies want a mandate then they should give us a referendum to decide.  An election and a referendum are 2 very different things and of course Abbott wants to blur that distinction and in doing so its your democracy and your power in it that he is taking from you. Same goes for when labor tries the same trick. 

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

John Smith Sure Gillard lied about the tax that most don't want, but the fact she lied about does not mean most wanted it like your dumb logic is trying to suggest.

The big impact of the fixed carbon price (which is the best method available) was the way the opposition and media drummed it into people day after day that it was a lie that they did not want.

Today there are people who are stupid enough to actually believe it.

Imagine what would have happened had the opposition and media carried on the same way about the GST lie. Day after day week after week year after year.

Kelty. The only person within ALP that has a brain. That is on message when it comes to how people have felt about labor.

Labor will have that feeling about them for a long time until they fess up and say sorry, we understand.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:04am: John Smith Sure Gillard lied about the tax that most don't want, but the fact she lied about does not mean most wanted it like your dumb logic is trying to suggest. The big impact of the fixed carbon price (which is the best method available) was the way the opposition and media drummed it into people day after day that it was a lie that they did not want. Today there are people who are stupid enough to actually believe it. Imagine what would have happened had the opposition and media carried on the same way about the GST lie. Day after day week after week year after year.

Kelty would say to you 'what the hell are you on about. Stop denying the fact that it was the people who drove the news. It was the people who felt that way. It wasnt an artifact of the news. It was an artifact of labor policy'

Go back to sleep now.

Tony will get rid of the price on carbon and yet electricity prices will continue to rise while Tony uses billions of taxpayers dollars to pay for his unfunded direct action plan.
Yep...you guessed it..everyone except for the big polluters lose under Tonys plan.

John Smith wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:43am: John Smith You keep banging on the CT had nothing to do with the ALP defeat, your either a moron or you despise democracy. You choose. Your displaying the height of ignorance to suggest the CT had nothing to do with the ALP defeat. Did not notice the greens vote going down either ? People based their votes on may issues ... the carbon tax, boat people, the economy, Gillard, Rudd, mining tax, PPS, the turmoil within the ALP, the surplus, the debt, pink batts, lies, mistrust, security   ...  for you to come out and pretend that everyone voted against labor because of the carbon tax just proves your head is stuck so far up your ar$e  you can see your eardrums. As for the Greens, I used to like the greens, I even voted for a greens once, never again .... and it's not because of the carbon tax.

John Smith

What were the issues in May ? :D :D :D :D

So why did people reject the greens ? I know the Carbon tax  :D :D :D :D

You are a thick one it just takes you few years longer to get where the electorate got to.

Your the grub who has his head stuck up his ar$e, sure the ALP lost for many reasons, the big two are the Carbon Tax/Lie and the other was Border Security..... polling should these as the big reasons they were rejecting the ALP.

The ALP needs to walk away from it and find a new narrative.

The day that Gillard said "There will be no carbon tax..." is the day she destroyed all moral arguments for a carbon tax that lefties could use

Shorten and Albo is banging on about how they believe in climate change to retake the moral argument - but that's not going to happen anytime soon

The Greens lost 25% of its voter base and Labor's primary vote is the lowest in 100 years tells us Aus voters don't like what Labor and Greens stand for

carbon tax boat ppl debt, end of story.

End of labor!

Gillard - and her government - were drawn to a major strategic error in letting the Abbott opposition "get away with" tagging the interim, fixed price phase of the Emissions Trading Scheme as a "carbon tax"

( ... I believe Gillard raised this in the Guardian essay ?)




The Abbott opposition capitalised - VERY successfully - on the electorates ignorance and/or confusion on carbon pricing schemes

The very fact the Abbott opposition "got away with" telling the electorate ( ... and quite a few posters in this forum) that a Carbon Tax and an Emissions Trading Scheme are the SAME THING - just CONFIRMS this

stryder wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Quote: By the way, Mandates aren't real, it is purely something politicians invented to push through their agendas John smith I think that is silly thing to say Johnny, but one which is worth remembering,  :D

you remember all you want ... my bet is you will conveniently forget when it suits you .... mandates aren't real. They are a fancy word put up by politicians to try and get their way.

Show me one single piece of legislation that mentions mandates ...  you won't find any, you know why? because there is none.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

Gillard - and her government - were drawn to a major strategic error in letting the Abbott opposition "get away with" tagging the interim, fixed price phase of the Emissions Trading Scheme as a "carbon tax" ( ... I believe Gillard raised this in the Guardian essay ?) The Abbott opposition capitalised - VERY successfully - on the electorates ignorance and/or confusion on carbon pricing schemes The very fact the Abbott opposition "got away with" telling the electorate ( ... and quite a few posters in this forum) that a Carbon Tax and an Emissions Trading Scheme are the SAME THING - just CONFIRMS this

buzzanddidj

A turd is a turd whether its a fixed turd or a floating turd.

In fact its is one the ALP are projecting to go much higher

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

John Smith What were the issues in May ? :D :D :D :D

Boat numbers
asylum seekers
failing economy
failed policy
Debt
trust
getting who you vote for
Gillard v Rudd
Rudd v Gillard
pink batts
govt. spending
the greens
ICAC
corruption
thommo
O'Beids
slipper
carbon tax


they are some of the more common issues that were being discussed ... there were many others

You think everyone that voted for libs did so because of the carbon tax? You don't think some may have voted based on some of the other issues? To claim a mandate you need to prove that everyone voted for because of the carbon tax ... none of the other issues were an influencing factor.

Go ahead, prove it!

I don't think it was the carbon tax itself. I think it was the process behind it.

I still think Abbott will keep the tax. It could work out quite well for him. He gets to keep the most economically rational mechanism for reducing GHG emissions. He gets to nullify the biggest criticism the left can throw at him. He gets to sink the boot into the microparties and independents and blame them for not getting his way and refusing to bow down to his glorious man date. We could end up with a carbon tax we cannot get rid of, but that neither major party is willing to claim ownership of.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 9:45am: Gillard - and her government - were drawn to a major strategic error in letting the Abbott opposition "get away with" tagging the interim, fixed price phase of the Emissions Trading Scheme as a "carbon tax" ( ... I believe Gillard raised this in the Guardian essay ?) The Abbott opposition capitalised - VERY successfully - on the electorates ignorance and/or confusion on carbon pricing schemes The very fact the Abbott opposition "got away with" telling the electorate ( ... and quite a few posters in this forum) that a Carbon Tax and an Emissions Trading Scheme are the SAME THING - just CONFIRMS this buzzanddidj A turd is a turd whether its a fixed turd or a floating turd.

See what I MEAN ?






"Whether it’s a fixed tax or a floating tax, (Rudd's floating-price emissions trading scheme) is still a tax."

Tony Abbott on Monday, July 15, 2013



FALSE

( ... not that it MATTERS - the electorate BOUGHT it - it's too LATE)

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/19/tony-abbott/tax-tax-tax-emissions-trading-scheme/

Interesting logic from Abbott there. If we accept that, then Julia went into the last election promising a carbon tax.

John Smith wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

.... mandates aren't real. They are a fancy word put up by politicians to try and get their way.

This was brought up on this morning's "INSIDERS"

Should winning an election - by a couple of percentage points - give a "green light" to every policy in party's manifesto ?

Not EVERYONE votes - one way, or another - for the SAME REASONS

And what of the substantial percentage of LibNat supporters in this election that  SUPPORT the ETS ?


The MOST bizarre of post-election statements MUST go to Tony Abbott's "she's a good girl" - Julie Bishop, who told us her party's election win was a "referendum on the ETS"

As a lawyer, her apparent definition of "referendum" - in regard to the Australian Constitution - is even MORE BIZARRE

Mandate or not, once the Senate changes, I would like to see the Government refresh workplace relations in Australia.

There needs to be more flexibility and competitive edge applied to assist economic growth.

That would be a welcome move by me.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Mandate or not, once the Senate changes, I would like to see the Government refresh workplace relations in Australia. There needs to be more flexibility and competitive edge applied to assist economic growth. That would be a welcome move by me.

Workchoices?

That's dead, buried, then resumed and cremated.

Or did the conservatives tell another lie.

Workplace relations encompasses many things.

There is a lot of refreshing of the workplace laws to be done in Australia to introduce some much needed flexibility.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Mandate or not, once the Senate changes, I would like to see the Government "refresh workplace relations" in Australia.

The stripping away of one hundred years of hard earned workers rights and entitlements is NOT a "workplace reform" AUSTRALIANS take kindly to - DESPITE the tedious RANTS of business groups and a small FOREIGN labour contingent

A POWER DRUNK former prime minister - with control of both houses of parliament - was tarred and feathered by the electorate for forcing HIS ( ... and employer groups) version of "reform" on Australian workers and their dependents

If an Australian employer and employee want to come to an agreement on pay and conditions ABOVE AWARD - there is NOTHING stopping them from doing so under current workplace law





*mental note
  beware of strange conservatives - bearing "reform"

The rant of someone completely ignorant of economics and business competitve edge.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

"Whether it’s a fixed tax or a floating tax, (Rudd's floating-price emissions trading scheme) is still a tax." Tony Abbott on Monday, July 15, 2013 FALSE http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/19/tony-abbott/tax-tax-tax-emissions-trading-scheme/

Did he really say that ???

Was it a lie or is he stupid ?????

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 10:00am:

I still think Abbott will keep the tax.

Abbott ought to "grow a pair" -  and 'fess-up - that his scare campaign on carbon pricing was JUST THAT

It's past it's "use by" date as a political and election tool ( ... a very effective tool, at that) - and has no further purpose






Carbon tax inflation fears evaporate

July 24, 2013
Tim Colebatch


Some wrecking ball that was!

Australia’s first year with a carbon tax has ended with inflation so low that it was only the carbon tax that kept inflation from falling out of the Reserve Bank’s target range.

The Bureau of Statistics reports that in the year to June, consumer prices rose 2.4 per cent on the raw data, 2.3 per cent after seasonal adjustment, and 2.2 per cent on the trimmed mean measure, which strips out the biggest price rises and falls to define underlying inflation.

That is low inflation by any measure. It shows the Coalition’s scare campaign against the carbon tax was just a scare campaign.

Bear in mind that before the carbon tax came in, Treasury estimated that it would lift the CPI by 0.7 per cent, and underlying inflation by 0.4 per cent. If that’s right – and some analysts looking at the data think the tax’s impact was even less than that – then without the carbon tax, the CPI would have risen 1.7 per cent, and the trimmed mean by 1.8 per cent.

Inflation is now running at low levels, domestic demand has stopped growing and wage growth has decelerated markedly. Away from the petrol pump, many firms will opt to absorb rising import costs rather than pass them on and risk losing business.

A rate cut Tuesday week should be a pretty safe bet. It would still leave Australian interest rates well above those in the rest of the West, but would probably give the currency markets a helpful nudge to sell the dollar down a bit more - as the Reserve would prefer.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/carbon-tax-inflation-fears-evaporate-20130724-2qj4q.html#ixzz2exeWrjn0

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Mandate or not, once the Senate changes, I would like to see the Government refresh workplace relations in Australia. There needs to be more flexibility and competitive edge applied to assist economic growth. That would be a welcome move by me.

So Andrei thinks it is okay for a politician to promise one thing to win power, then do the opposite once elected.

So Gillard's about face on the carbon tax was morally okay by you, Andrei? Or do you judge politicians by different standards according to which party they represent?

I don't give a stuff what is welcome by you. You don't live here.

No. I currently choose to live in Europe for a myriad of reasons both career and personal.

Nonetheless I am an Australian born citizen which makes my opinion more valid than some sheep fondling blow in with socialist bludging tendencies.

On the pension courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer no doubt like every other waster from those sh1t irrelevant islands of yours.

labor is to blame for labors defeat.

not that they'ld ever hint at that.

John Smith wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:52am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ... And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ??? I'm not dismissive of anything, I just don't believe that Abbott won a mandate to do what he likes .. the people voted for a change in government, they also voted for a senate that would stop Abbott railroading his policies through ... why do you pretend that only the vote in the house of representatives matters and the vote in the senate can be dismissed ?

one of your own - Keating- said exactly that.  r do you really want to maintain that a clown that got just 12000 votes is representative of the electorate while another that received 110,000 did not win?

the senate has a problem with NOT being particularly representative.

John Smith wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 10:01am: Quote: By the way, Mandates aren't real, it is purely something politicians invented to push through their agendas John smith I think that is silly thing to say Johnny, but one which is worth remembering,  :D you remember all you want ... my bet is you will conveniently forget when it suits you .... mandates aren't real. They are a fancy word put up by politicians to try and get their way. Show me one single piece of legislation that mentions mandates ...  you won't find any, you know why? because there is none.

'mandates' are an ethical argument not a constitutional one.  It is a convention and a way of governing that is MORE than mere constitutionality and legality.  It is how we operate in a community or in this case how we operate in a parliamentary community.  It is quite obvious why you don't understand it.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:33am: John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:23am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:52am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:45am: I know there will be time ahead for labor figures and historians to debate why the australian labor party was defeated comprehensively last saturday, but I believe the no carbon tax pledge is one of the many factors that contributed to labors defeat, hands down along with other factors such as the boat people issue, spending taxpayers money into many wasteful policies and programs and the debt were accumulating, the shady and dark relationship between the unions and the labor party itself revealed through the craig thommo affair and others like the backstabbing nature of the ALP leadership itself yes, it was one of MANY factors ... but it was not the reason in itself. If the only thing labor had done wrong was to introduce the carbon tax, and there were no other issues, the libs would never have won the election ... And yet stupidity still runs wild in the ALP still as this week Labor member Mark Dreyfus has declared his party will oppose Tony Abbotts attempts to scrap the carbon tax, by stating that he got a mandate to defend good policy ? I MEAN HELLO, LABOR JUST GOT ITS @RSE KICKED LAST SATURDAY BY THE ELECTORATE AND HE SAYS THAT  ;D Does labor want to learn from its mistakes or just be as dismissive of its mistakes like richard dreyfus and as you seem to be John smith ??? I'm not dismissive of anything, I just don't believe that Abbott won a mandate to do what he likes .. the people voted for a change in government, they also voted for a senate that would stop Abbott railroading his policies through ... why do you pretend that only the vote in the house of representatives matters and the vote in the senate can be dismissed ?    Im not pretending anything, Abbott pretty much made it clear he wants to scrap the carbon tax he said it many times in slogans and sentences that people like yourself and lefties mocked, but Tony abbott won the trust of the australian people last saturday with that stated message repeated many times. Quite frankly i believe the senate needs to be reformed as others as suggested to clearly stop the confusion of the measure of any mandate itself, will that happen is another thing. SO!!!! What Abbott wants and what Abbott wishes for doesn't mean that the people gave him a mandate for it.  You undermine your own power in a system which already gives you very little when you interpret a mandate so widely out of what happened in the last election.  Oh I can see a little tear in your eye and a tug to your heart strings when the Pollies tell you what a great democracy you have, but what do you have really.  A sH^t campaign based on character assassination, negativity and very little discussion of policy and then every 3 years you get to put a few numbers in a box against a persons name and afterwards they expect to say "See the majority of Australians authorised me to do everything I ever mentioned in the campaign". And all the while your joining in the chant "look at me, look at me I live in a great democracy where I decide, I'm free Im free".  Don't let them rob you of your power to have a genuine say in how your life and the lives of your family is run.  Many people who voted for Abbott in the House did not vote for him in the senate because they did not want the carbon tax repealed. Many people voted for Abbott because, for example, they believed the libs would be better economic managers but hate his proposed repeat of the carbon tax.  Looking at the election results will never tell you where the majority is with regard to any of these issues.  Our system is not designed to give or ascertain mandates.  If the pollies want a mandate then they should give us a referendum to decide.  An election and a referendum are 2 very different things and of course Abbott wants to blur that distinction and in doing so its your democracy and your power in it that he is taking from you. Same goes for when labor tries the same trick.

Are you sure about that ? given the layout of the senate so far is looking like a collection of kooky in nature parties but dont share most the of lefts ideas and beliefs so far either and in the mix the greens vote suffered a fall of nearly quarter, add those maths and you might see you have a potential problem for labors attempt to stop the scrapping of the carbon tax.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:32am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 9:53am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 10:01am: Quote: By the way, Mandates aren't real, it is purely something politicians invented to push through their agendas John smith I think that is silly thing to say Johnny, but one which is worth remembering,  :D you remember all you want ... my bet is you will conveniently forget when it suits you .... mandates aren't real. They are a fancy word put up by politicians to try and get their way. Show me one single piece of legislation that mentions mandates ...  you won't find any, you know why? because there is none. 'mandates' are an ethical argument not a constitutional one.  It is a convention and a way of governing that is MORE than mere constitutionality and legality.  It is how we operate in a community or in this case how we operate in a parliamentary community.  It is quite obvious why you don't understand it.

According to Longy a mandate means that the Liberal party gets their way, regardless of who is actually in power or how.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:32am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 9:53am: stryder wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 10:01am: Quote: By the way, Mandates aren't real, it is purely something politicians invented to push through their agendas John smith I think that is silly thing to say Johnny, but one which is worth remembering,  :D you remember all you want ... my bet is you will conveniently forget when it suits you .... mandates aren't real. They are a fancy word put up by politicians to try and get their way. Show me one single piece of legislation that mentions mandates ...  you won't find any, you know why? because there is none. 'mandates' are an ethical argument not a constitutional one.  It is a convention and a way of governing that is MORE than mere constitutionality and legality.  It is how we operate in a community or in this case how we operate in a parliamentary community.  It is quite obvious why you don't understand it.

you mean like the convention whereby one party would act as a 'pair' for an opposing minister who couldn't make it? How many 'conventions' did Abbott ignore in opposition longy?

Paybacks a b1tch isn't it.

By the way, I don't remember you having ever explained why Abbott didn't allow labors 'mandate' for the ETS .... I'm still waiting for that answer. If I missed it, just say so and I'll have a look for it.

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 10:00am:

I don't think it was the carbon tax itself. I think it was the process behind it. I still think Abbott will keep the tax. It could work out quite well for him. He gets to keep the most economically rational mechanism for reducing GHG emissions. He gets to nullify the biggest criticism the left can throw at him. He gets to sink the boot into the microparties and independents and blame them for not getting his way and refusing to bow down to his glorious man date. We could end up with a carbon tax we cannot get rid of, but that neither major party is willing to claim ownership of.

Exactly. And let’s face it, what other tricks has he got up his sleeve?

Ditch the witch, stop the boats, but keep the tax.

Abbott might as well keep Labor’s policies. He’s not there to do much. Steady as she goes, remember?

Abbott’s in this for the big desk and chair - and a run at lunchtime. At the end of the day, what else is there?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 12:13am:

No. I currently choose to live in Europe for a myriad of reasons both career and personal. Nonetheless I am an Australian born citizen which makes my opinion more valid than some sheep fondling blow in with socialist bludging tendencies. On the pension courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer no doubt like every other waster from those sh1t irrelevant islands of yours.

Excuse me, Matty’s father owns one of those islands. I’ll thank you to respect your superiors and keep a civil tongue in your head.

stryder wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Are you sure about that ? given the layout of the senate so far is looking like a collection of kooky in nature parties but dont share most the of lefts ideas and beliefs so far either and in the mix the greens vote suffered a fall of nearly quarter, add those maths and you might see you have a potential problem for labors attempt to stop the scrapping of the carbon tax.

Oh look, Im not saying that Abbott wont be able to repeal the Carbon tax.  If the senate pans out as they're saying with 7 macro party senators, I think there's a good chance after July next year that Abbott will be able to repeal the carbon tax. But what I'm saying is that elections are not geared to determining where mandates lie because its not possible on the numbers of the election to determine where the majority lies on any issue.  And what I'm also saying is that in a few years time when labor wins office again it will start insisting that it has a mandate to do everything it ever spoke about in the lead up to the election, even though in all probability the majority will be anti many things that labor stood for.  IF you accept the mandate argument then its your power they are taking away. Dont let them do that.  If they want a mandate, put it to a referendum (where its obvious what the majority wants) otherwise its not a mandate.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 7:56am:

stryder wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:36am: Are you sure about that ? given the layout of the senate so far is looking like a collection of kooky in nature parties but dont share most the of lefts ideas and beliefs so far either and in the mix the greens vote suffered a fall of nearly quarter, add those maths and you might see you have a potential problem for labors attempt to stop the scrapping of the carbon tax. Oh look, Im not saying that Abbott wont be able to repeal the Carbon tax.  If the senate pans out as they're saying with 7 macro party senators, I think there's a good chance after July next year that Abbott will be able to repeal the carbon tax. But what I'm saying is that elections are not geared to determining where mandates lie because its not possible on the numbers of the election to determine where the majority lies on any issue.  And what I'm also saying is that in a few years time when labor wins office again it will start insisting that it has a mandate to do everything it ever spoke about in the lead up to the election, even though in all probability the majority will be anti many things that labor stood for.  IF you accept the mandate argument then its your power they are taking away. Dont let them do that.  If they want a mandate, put it to a referendum (where its obvious what the majority wants) otherwise its not a mandate.

we don't have any binding referenda on legislative matters.  And if the labor govt took a referendum on the carbon tax and lost, do you think they would follow thru?

One thing is certain and thats when a price is once again put on atmospheric pollution it will be a lot more expensive and less effective than if we had just stuck with it now.
The mad monk will be responsible for every death, every injury, every lost property and every devastated family whenever catastrophic weather events occur from the day he took office.
The finger is now pointing at phony tony .........................

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 7:56am: stryder wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:36am: Are you sure about that ? given the layout of the senate so far is looking like a collection of kooky in nature parties but dont share most the of lefts ideas and beliefs so far either and in the mix the greens vote suffered a fall of nearly quarter, add those maths and you might see you have a potential problem for labors attempt to stop the scrapping of the carbon tax. Oh look, Im not saying that Abbott wont be able to repeal the Carbon tax.  If the senate pans out as they're saying with 7 macro party senators, I think there's a good chance after July next year that Abbott will be able to repeal the carbon tax. But what I'm saying is that elections are not geared to determining where mandates lie because its not possible on the numbers of the election to determine where the majority lies on any issue.  And what I'm also saying is that in a few years time when labor wins office again it will start insisting that it has a mandate to do everything it ever spoke about in the lead up to the election, even though in all probability the majority will be anti many things that labor stood for.  IF you accept the mandate argument then its your power they are taking away. Dont let them do that.  If they want a mandate, put it to a referendum (where its obvious what the majority wants) otherwise its not a mandate.    we don't have any binding referenda on legislative matters.  And if the labor govt took a referendum on the carbon tax and lost, do you think they would follow thru?

Oh dear don"t know how many times I have to repeat this to you.  I am sometimes tempted to think that you just like to play dumb and then I realise, Nahhh he is dumb.  There is nothing to stop us having a referendum. Sure its not legally binding on the Government but I'd like to see them not do what the majority asked for.   Which answers the last question of your post.  You know the, ohh I'm so persecuted question about whether labor would honor a referendum ion the carbon tax. Answer, yes.  Ohh they keep persecuting me!!!!   

John Smith wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

By the way, I don't remember you having ever explained why Abbott didn't allow labors 'mandate' for the ETS .... I'm still waiting for that answer. If I missed it, just say so and I'll have a look for it.

don't run away longy .....

adelcrow wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

The mad monk will be responsible for every death, every injury, every lost property and every devastated family whenever catastrophic weather events occur from the day he took office. The finger is now pointing at phony tony .........................

Hey adelcrow, I agree.  This is especially true because the dear leader knows what the consequences of his inaction will be but is using this issue for short term political gain to appease the extreme right wing crazies in his party.  In my view Howard should have been punished for war crimes and Abbott for the most serious crime against humanity we will ever see in our lifetime. It is not a defense to the crime against humanity to say that "I did it because I believed it was in my financial best interests".      

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 10:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 8:28am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 7:56am: stryder wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:36am: Are you sure about that ? given the layout of the senate so far is looking like a collection of kooky in nature parties but dont share most the of lefts ideas and beliefs so far either and in the mix the greens vote suffered a fall of nearly quarter, add those maths and you might see you have a potential problem for labors attempt to stop the scrapping of the carbon tax. Oh look, Im not saying that Abbott wont be able to repeal the Carbon tax.  If the senate pans out as they're saying with 7 macro party senators, I think there's a good chance after July next year that Abbott will be able to repeal the carbon tax. But what I'm saying is that elections are not geared to determining where mandates lie because its not possible on the numbers of the election to determine where the majority lies on any issue.  And what I'm also saying is that in a few years time when labor wins office again it will start insisting that it has a mandate to do everything it ever spoke about in the lead up to the election, even though in all probability the majority will be anti many things that labor stood for.  IF you accept the mandate argument then its your power they are taking away. Dont let them do that.  If they want a mandate, put it to a referendum (where its obvious what the majority wants) otherwise its not a mandate.    we don't have any binding referenda on legislative matters.  And if the labor govt took a referendum on the carbon tax and lost, do you think they would follow thru? Oh dear don"t know how many times I have to repeat this to you.  I am sometimes tempted to think that you just like to play dumb and then I realise, Nahhh he is dumb.  There is nothing to stop us having a referendum. Sure its not legally binding on the Government but I'd like to see them not do what the majority asked for.   Which answers the last question of your post.  You know the, ohh I'm so persecuted question about whether labor would honor a referendum ion the carbon tax. Answer, yes.  Ohh they keep persecuting me!!!!

a plebiscite on a question like that would cost a LOT of money typically around $70M which is why such things are normally connected with elections to reduce costs.  by a non-binding plebiscite is the best you can have and most of us doubt the value.  If the ALP had bothered to have a plebiscite on the carbon tax they would have lost which is why they didn't bother and if they had, they would have ignored it.

and like it or not, that IS the state of play.  I would support a binding plebiscite but we don't have that facility.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 10:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 8:28am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 7:56am: stryder wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:36am: Are you sure about that ? given the layout of the senate so far is looking like a collection of kooky in nature parties but dont share most the of lefts ideas and beliefs so far either and in the mix the greens vote suffered a fall of nearly quarter, add those maths and you might see you have a potential problem for labors attempt to stop the scrapping of the carbon tax. Oh look, Im not saying that Abbott wont be able to repeal the Carbon tax.  If the senate pans out as they're saying with 7 macro party senators, I think there's a good chance after July next year that Abbott will be able to repeal the carbon tax. But what I'm saying is that elections are not geared to determining where mandates lie because its not possible on the numbers of the election to determine where the majority lies on any issue.  And what I'm also saying is that in a few years time when labor wins office again it will start insisting that it has a mandate to do everything it ever spoke about in the lead up to the election, even though in all probability the majority will be anti many things that labor stood for.  IF you accept the mandate argument then its your power they are taking away. Dont let them do that.  If they want a mandate, put it to a referendum (where its obvious what the majority wants) otherwise its not a mandate.    we don't have any binding referenda on legislative matters.  And if the labor govt took a referendum on the carbon tax and lost, do you think they would follow thru? Oh dear don"t know how many times I have to repeat this to you.  I am sometimes tempted to think that you just like to play dumb and then I realise, Nahhh he is dumb.  There is nothing to stop us having a referendum. Sure its not legally binding on the Government but I'd like to see them not do what the majority asked for.   Which answers the last question of your post.  You know the, ohh I'm so persecuted question about whether labor would honor a referendum ion the carbon tax. Answer, yes.  Ohh they keep persecuting me!!!!    a plebiscite on a question like that would cost a LOT of money typically around $70M which is why such things are normally connected with elections to reduce costs.  by a non-binding plebiscite is the best you can have and most of us doubt the value.  If the ALP had bothered to have a plebiscite on the carbon tax they would have lost which is why they didn't bother and if they had, they would have ignored it. and like it or not, that IS the state of play.  I would support a binding plebiscite but we don't have that facility.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Has he finished yet.  Ahh no, not yet. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 8:29am: The mad monk will be responsible for every death, every injury, every lost property and every devastated family whenever catastrophic weather events occur from the day he took office. The finger is now pointing at phony tony ......................... Hey adelcrow, I agree.  This is especially true because the dear leader knows what the consequences of his inaction will be but is using this issue for short term political gain to appease the extreme right wing crazies in his party.  In my view Howard should have been punished for war crimes and Abbott for the most serious crime against humanity we will ever see in our lifetime. It is not a defense to the crime against humanity to say that "I did it because I believed it was in my financial best interests".

'tell 'im he's dreamin'  ;D ;D

you two whack jobs and your catastrophes crack me up  ;D ;D ;D ;D