The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%.

http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857

Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this.

Greens are crashing too. I wonder how GW will spin this...

Perhaps you could learn to read A.P.
Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott.

____ wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott.

Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:57pm:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA.

Yeah - but Bill IS the best weapon the Libs have, much as Tony was the best weapon Labor had.

Since I support neither, I snipe both sides....... equally of course...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:57pm:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA.

Abbott imploded because in part of the pressure applied by Shorten.
Shorten saw of Abbott.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Yeah - but Bill IS the best weapon the Libs have, much as Tony was the best weapon Labor had. Since I support neither, I snipe both sides....... equally of course...

Yep agree the only person sadder than Abbott dumped was Shorten I believe his fate is sealed.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:41pm:

Greens are crashing too. I wonder how GW will spin this...

the guy running LIPSOS.. looks like WALLYs brother...

I wouldnt trust those figures if they were set in stone.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Yeah - but Bill IS the best weapon the Libs have, much as Tony was the best weapon Labor had. Since I support neither, I snipe both sides....... equally of course...

no ducky the WHOLE LABOR PARTY is their best bet..

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

havent  you noticed how the whole team is INVISIBLE since PARIS>. ::) ::) ::) ::)

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:41pm: Greens are crashing too. I wonder how GW will spin this... the guy running LIPSOS.. looks like WALLYs brother... I wouldnt trust those figures if they were set in stone.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

46.3% for the coalition. You think it should be lower?

11.2%! Not quite a greens win, is it?

double plus good wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

11.2%! Not quite a greens win, is it?

Considering the far righters and labouring JM claimed Greens 10% and dropping today.

Greens win.

double plus good wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

11.2%! Not quite a greens win, is it?

anything with double figures is good with greens he is so easily pleased...take a look at the link he put up.. ;D ;Dalmost as good as facebook..

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:41pm:

double plus good wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:35pm: 11.2%! Not quite a greens win, is it? anything with double figures is good with greens he is so easily pleased...take a look at the link he put up.. ;D ;Dalmost as good as facebook..

Your on facebook now cods. Watch out, it's a slippery slop. Next you will be education yourself via ABC and Fairfax.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:57pm:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA.

Gillard saw off Rudd. Rudd saw off Gillard.  Tony did sfa.  And still the lunatic right called him a great opposition leader who saw off 2 prime ministers ;D.  You can't have it both ways.

____ wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Abbott imploded because in part of the pressure applied by Shorten. Shorten saw of Abbott.

You really are delusional if you honestly think Shorten had any effect on Abbott's demise. For Abbott, it was political death by media.

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 10:41pm:

double plus good wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:35pm: 11.2%! Not quite a greens win, is it? anything with double figures is good with greens he is so easily pleased...take a look at the link he put up.. ;D ;Dalmost as good as facebook..

Yep. It's not so much a prediction as one of his wet dreams.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:04am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Gillard saw off Rudd. Rudd saw off Gillard.  Tony did sfa.  And still the lunatic right called him a great opposition leader who saw off 2 prime ministers ;D.  You can't have it both ways.

Tony hammered Rudd & Gillard. The media actually loved Rudd and were petrified of attacking Gillard on the chance they'd be branded as sexist. No, it was just about all Tony, with a little help from the media toward the end.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:11am:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Abbott imploded because in part of the pressure applied by Shorten. Shorten saw of Abbott. You really are delusional if you honestly think Shorten had any effect on Abbott's demise. For Abbott, it was political death by media.

The pressure Shorten applied after the disaster of a first budget helped sowed the seeds of abbott's demise.
It wasn't all abbott who turned so many against him.


https://youtu.be/oMAlf0MDp0Y

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:11am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Abbott imploded because in part of the pressure applied by Shorten. Shorten saw of Abbott. You really are delusional if you honestly think Shorten had any effect on Abbott's demise. For Abbott, it was political death by media. The pressure Shorten applied after the disaster of a first budget helped sowed the seeds of abbott's demise. It wasn't all abbott who turned so many against him.

what pressure was that?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:04am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Gillard saw off Rudd. Rudd saw off Gillard.  Tony did sfa.  And still the lunatic right called him a great opposition leader who saw off 2 prime ministers ;D.  You can't have it both ways. Tony hammered Rudd & Gillard. The media actually loved Rudd and were petrified of attacking Gillard on the chance they'd be branded as sexist. No, it was just about all Tony, with a little help from the media toward the end.

what are you deluded? The media hounded Gillard day and night.

Faarrkk you're an idiot.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:12am:

cods wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:41pm: double plus good wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:35pm: 11.2%! Not quite a greens win, is it? anything with double figures is good with greens he is so easily pleased...take a look at the link he put up.. ;D ;Dalmost as good as facebook.. Yep. It's not so much a prediction as one of his wet dreams.

what isnt on his fantasy websites he makes up anyway....I find it really funny to read some of the B/S a few on here write....I mean its bizarre..the accusations and lies.. they dont even blush..its almost like reading Enid Blyton..

cods wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:27am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:11am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Abbott imploded because in part of the pressure applied by Shorten. Shorten saw of Abbott. You really are delusional if you honestly think Shorten had any effect on Abbott's demise. For Abbott, it was political death by media. The pressure Shorten applied after the disaster of a first budget helped sowed the seeds of abbott's demise. It wasn't all abbott who turned so many against him. what pressure was that?

Bill's constant stream of zingers aimed at abbott ... the mounting pressure showed daily on abbott's scow.

Just not Bull Shitten's years, he crashed mummy's car as well. Wonder if he was breathalysed?  Poor little Billy...... ;D ;D

Greens does not understand that irrespective of the Greens polling numbers or vote that they are the biggest loser in any election won by the Liberals.

Having more Greens senators being ignored in parliament makes no difference to green policy or environment issues.

At the moment the Greens seem to have captain stupid in charge who also does not understand this obvious fact.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:04am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Gillard saw off Rudd. Rudd saw off Gillard.  Tony did sfa.  And still the lunatic right called him a great opposition leader who saw off 2 prime ministers ;D.  You can't have it both ways. Tony hammered Rudd & Gillard. The media actually loved Rudd and were petrified of attacking Gillard on the chance they'd be branded as sexist. No, it was just about all Tony, with a little help from the media toward the end.

Rubbish Tony took the credit for the work done by the Media.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:41am:

Rubbish Tony took the credit for the work done by the Media.

If they had to pay for it, The libs couldn't afford all the free marketing provided by newscorp.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:04am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. Gillard saw off Rudd. Rudd saw off Gillard.  Tony did sfa.  And still the lunatic right called him a great opposition leader who saw off 2 prime ministers ;D.  You can't have it both ways. Tony hammered Rudd & Gillard. The media actually loved Rudd and were petrified of attacking Gillard on the chance they'd be branded as sexist. No, it was just about all Tony, with a little help from the media toward the end.

geez you make a great pet!  Stop rewriting history.  Labor lost because of instability.  Instability caused by Rudd and Gillard.  A toothpick leading the liberal party would have won, and probably would have had a better approval rating than idiot tony ;D

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:37am:

Greens does not understand that irrespective of the Greens polling numbers or vote that they are the biggest loser in any election won by the Liberals. Having more Greens senators being ignored in parliament makes no difference to green policy or environment issues. At the moment the Greens seem to have captain stupid in charge who also does not understand this obvious fact.

When push comes to shove, is there really that much difference between the two olds besides a little window dressing.
Look how labor has turned it's back on workers by supporting the China FTA, and labor's support of the TPP.

And when measuring stupidity of leadership ...  finally a winner for labor.

https://youtu.be/JgqJ1Wp-AoU

____ wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%. http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857 Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this.

Wow, a move well within margin of error gets you excited? The days of 16 and 14% are behind the Greens, never to return.

Greens will always represent two type of voters
1) the protest vote
2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:50am:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:36pm: The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%. http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857 Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this. Wow, a move well within margin of error gets you excited? The days of 16 and 14% are behind the Greens, never to return.

Labor is on the nose and all hopes are in Shorten's election zingers.
So looking forward to the three way leadership debate.
Or will it be like the North Sydney by election.
Labor will forget to turn up.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality.

Better to represent voters than factions, yes?

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:51am: Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality. Better to represent voters than factions, yes?

U mistake me for a labor supporter.  Fact is that greens are piss weak without any real sense of what they believe in.  They are not a real left leaning party. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality.

3) the wealthy inner city professionals who like to believe they are oh so progressive but don’t want to actually pay any price for that. These are the Greens’ base and this is why the Greens talk progressive-left but are in fact conservative–right.

As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread their current Leader, DiNatale, has harmed the Greens support, did this by moving the Greens way to the right.

I predict the Greens will support an increase in the GST to get their base the big tax cuts and that this will finish the Greens.

Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change


http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk

Yeah, well Greens are well known for their betrayals so I stick to my prediction that, with a lot of waffle and some bulldust meaningless amendments the Greens will help their good friends the Libs.

Do you acknowledge the Greens have moved even further to the right and have lost a lot of support because of that?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:51am: Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality. 3) the wealthy inner city professionals who like to believe they are oh so progressive but don’t want to actually pay any price for that. These are the Greens’ base and this is why the Greens talk progressive-left but are in fact conservative–right. As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread their current Leader, DiNatale, has harmed the Greens support, did this by moving the Greens way to the right. I predict the Greens will support an increase in the GST to get their base the big tax cuts and that this will finish the Greens.

We just know the greens have no real policies and are a soft cry baby party.  They probably still secretly believe in a one state solution, because we all live in a world filled with roses. Not to mention that they are even lost on environmental policy, voting down an ets through basic stupidity.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk

how will the greens pay for roads, hospitals and education?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk Yeah, well Greens are well known for their betrayals so I stick to my prediction that, with a lot of waffle and some bulldust meaningless amendments the Greens will help their good friends the Libs. Do you acknowledge the Greens have moved even further to the right and have lost a lot of support because of that?

Glenn Lazarus accuses Government, Labor of 'dirty deal' over renewable energy target

Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus has accused the Government and Labor of doing a "dirty deal" to reduce the renewable energy target.

The Coalition and Labor have agreed to a new target for renewable energy of 33,000 gigawatt hours down from the existing target of 41,000.

Senator Lazarus supports the higher target.

"I cannot and will not be part of this dirty deal that reduces Australia's renewable energy target (RET) and our country's commitment to the renewable energy sector," he told the Senate.

"If the Abbott Government and the Opposition are successful in reducing Australia's renewable energy target, Australia will become the first country in the world to reduce a RET.

"I cannot and will not be part of this despicable act."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/glenn-lazarus-accuses-government,-labor-of-'dirty'-ret-deal/6554764


Betrayals you say !

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk how will the greens pay for roads, hospitals and education?

More Greens policies costed than Labor, Coalition

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/greens-submitted-39-policies-pbo-costed/1991406/

Come election, Greens will maintain their high standards.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:26am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:20am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk how will the greens pay for roads, hospitals and education? More Greens policies costed than Labor, Coalition http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/greens-submitted-39-policies-pbo-costed/1991406/ Come election, Greens will maintain their high standards.

Wow, what an achievement, the greens have more coatings than labor.  Again, you confuse me with a labor supporter.

How will the greens pay for hospitals, schools, roads, police, ambulances, etc?  Why do the greens continue to propose a tax system that leaves the status quo as it is, with rich having loopholes and the poor paying proportional to their income a lot more?

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:12am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk Yeah, well Greens are well known for their betrayals so I stick to my prediction that, with a lot of waffle and some bulldust meaningless amendments the Greens will help their good friends the Libs. Do you acknowledge the Greens have moved even further to the right and have lost a lot of support because of that? Glenn Lazarus accuses Government, Labor of 'dirty deal' over renewable energy target Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus has accused the Government and Labor of doing a "dirty deal" to reduce the renewable energy target. The Coalition and Labor have agreed to a new target for renewable energy of 33,000 gigawatt hours down from the existing target of 41,000. Senator Lazarus supports the higher target. "I cannot and will not be part of this dirty deal that reduces Australia's renewable energy target (RET) and our country's commitment to the renewable energy sector," he told the Senate. "If the Abbott Government and the Opposition are successful in reducing Australia's renewable energy target, Australia will become the first country in the world to reduce a RET. "I cannot and will not be part of this despicable act." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/glenn-lazarus-accuses-government,-labor-of-'dirty'-ret-deal/6554764 Betrayals you say !

Better half a loaf than no loaf at all tho the Greens, not a Party of government, prefer hollow gestures.

Now, what about the Greens’ loss of support due to DiNatale moving the Greens even further to the Right?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:51am: Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality. 3) the wealthy inner city professionals who like to believe they are oh so progressive but don’t want to actually pay any price for that. These are the Greens’ base and this is why the Greens talk progressive-left but are in fact conservative–right. As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread their current Leader, DiNatale, has harmed the Greens support, did this by moving the Greens way to the right. I predict the Greens will support an increase in the GST to get their base the big tax cuts and that this will finish the Greens. We just know the greens have no real policies and are a soft cry baby party.  They probably still secretly believe in a one state solution, because we all live in a world filled with roses. Not to mention that they are even lost on environmental policy, voting down an ets through basic stupidity.

I agree. The basic stupidity was labor's.
Not taking their ETS to a double dissolution, when the majority of supporters would of backed 'real' action on climate change. Real, not Labor's trickery.

Greens will not support bad policy, that's why the ets was rejected.

Another deflection.

The CPRS Bills were not identical so no DD was possible. That is why the Greens opposed the CPRS I think, hoping for a DD and more Green Senators. No thought about AGW.

Now, why have the Greens lost so much support, 16% to 10% or 11.2% if you prefer, is it due to DiNatale moving the Greens even further to the Right?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:20am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk how will the greens pay for roads, hospitals and education? More Greens policies costed than Labor, Coalition http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/greens-submitted-39-policies-pbo-costed/1991406/ Come election, Greens will maintain their high standards. Wow, what an achievement, the greens have more coatings than labor.  Again, you confuse me with a labor supporter. How will the greens pay for hospitals, schools, roads, police, ambulances, etc?  Why do the greens continue to propose a tax system that leaves the status quo as it is, with rich having loopholes and the poor paying proportional to their income a lot more?

I haven't forgotten your last post stating you are not a labor supporter.
Come election time, the Greens policies will be costed and verified.
Asking for them before the election is a red herring.

No political party does that.

:P :o
____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:31am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:51am: Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality. 3) the wealthy inner city professionals who like to believe they are oh so progressive but don’t want to actually pay any price for that. These are the Greens’ base and this is why the Greens talk progressive-left but are in fact conservative–right. As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread their current Leader, DiNatale, has harmed the Greens support, did this by moving the Greens way to the right. I predict the Greens will support an increase in the GST to get their base the big tax cuts and that this will finish the Greens. We just know the greens have no real policies and are a soft cry baby party.  They probably still secretly believe in a one state solution, because we all live in a world filled with roses. Not to mention that they are even lost on environmental policy, voting down an ets through basic stupidity. I agree. The basic stupidity was labor's. Not taking their ETS to a double dissolution, when the majority of supporters would of backed 'real' action on climate change. Real, not Labor's trickery. Greens will not support bad policy, that's why the ets was rejected.

And instead a year later a carbon tax that was fundamentally the same thing?  Not to mention that had the ets passed, we'd at least probably would have never gotten Tony, and would still have a functioning solution today.

Instead, the greens and their greed resulted in nothing.  Well done.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:31am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:12am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk Yeah, well Greens are well known for their betrayals so I stick to my prediction that, with a lot of waffle and some bulldust meaningless amendments the Greens will help their good friends the Libs. Do you acknowledge the Greens have moved even further to the right and have lost a lot of support because of that? Glenn Lazarus accuses Government, Labor of 'dirty deal' over renewable energy target Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus has accused the Government and Labor of doing a "dirty deal" to reduce the renewable energy target. The Coalition and Labor have agreed to a new target for renewable energy of 33,000 gigawatt hours down from the existing target of 41,000. Senator Lazarus supports the higher target. "I cannot and will not be part of this dirty deal that reduces Australia's renewable energy target (RET) and our country's commitment to the renewable energy sector," he told the Senate. "If the Abbott Government and the Opposition are successful in reducing Australia's renewable energy target, Australia will become the first country in the world to reduce a RET. "I cannot and will not be part of this despicable act." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/glenn-lazarus-accuses-government,-labor-of-'dirty'-ret-deal/6554764 Betrayals you say ! Better half a loaf than no loaf at all tho the Greens, not a Party of government, prefer hollow gestures. Now, what about the Greens’ loss of support due to DiNatale moving the Greens even further to the Right?

It wasn't a choice between half and all. Labor helped to attack the renewable energy target when not helping the government, the target would of remain as is.

Labor attacks Renewable Energy while claiming they support Renewable Energy.

Unethical Labor.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:29am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:20am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk how will the greens pay for roads, hospitals and education? More Greens policies costed than Labor, Coalition http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/greens-submitted-39-policies-pbo-costed/1991406/ Come election, Greens will maintain their high standards. Wow, what an achievement, the greens have more coatings than labor.  Again, you confuse me with a labor supporter. How will the greens pay for hospitals, schools, roads, police, ambulances, etc?  Why do the greens continue to propose a tax system that leaves the status quo as it is, with rich having loopholes and the poor paying proportional to their income a lot more? I haven't forgotten your last post stating you are not a labor supporter. Come election time, the Greens policies will be costed and verified. Asking for them before the election is a red herring. No political party does that.

Oh wow, looks like the greens are taking on the SAME bad habits from mainstream parties. 

What pathetic wannabees.  Why vote for the greens?  They over promise and deliver us Tony Abbott.

I guess Greens_10% is in deep denial.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:37am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:31am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:12am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk Yeah, well Greens are well known for their betrayals so I stick to my prediction that, with a lot of waffle and some bulldust meaningless amendments the Greens will help their good friends the Libs. Do you acknowledge the Greens have moved even further to the right and have lost a lot of support because of that? Glenn Lazarus accuses Government, Labor of 'dirty deal' over renewable energy target Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus has accused the Government and Labor of doing a "dirty deal" to reduce the renewable energy target. The Coalition and Labor have agreed to a new target for renewable energy of 33,000 gigawatt hours down from the existing target of 41,000. Senator Lazarus supports the higher target. "I cannot and will not be part of this dirty deal that reduces Australia's renewable energy target (RET) and our country's commitment to the renewable energy sector," he told the Senate. "If the Abbott Government and the Opposition are successful in reducing Australia's renewable energy target, Australia will become the first country in the world to reduce a RET. "I cannot and will not be part of this despicable act." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/glenn-lazarus-accuses-government,-labor-of-'dirty'-ret-deal/6554764 Betrayals you say ! Better half a loaf than no loaf at all tho the Greens, not a Party of government, prefer hollow gestures. Now, what about the Greens’ loss of support due to DiNatale moving the Greens even further to the Right? It wasn't a choice between half and all. Labor helped to attack the renewable energy target when not helping the government, the target would of remain as is. Labor attacks Renewable Energy while claiming they support Renewable Energy. Unethical Labor.

Unethical, cynical Greens, a minor party fast losing support.

You obviously forgot the months and months of nothing happening in the renwables field, the projects, investment and jobs lost. Labor salvaged something, better than what abbott wanted while the Greens engaged in stunts and gestures.

No wonder the Greens are losing support.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

:P :o ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:31am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:51am: Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality. 3) the wealthy inner city professionals who like to believe they are oh so progressive but don’t want to actually pay any price for that. These are the Greens’ base and this is why the Greens talk progressive-left but are in fact conservative–right. As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread their current Leader, DiNatale, has harmed the Greens support, did this by moving the Greens way to the right. I predict the Greens will support an increase in the GST to get their base the big tax cuts and that this will finish the Greens. We just know the greens have no real policies and are a soft cry baby party.  They probably still secretly believe in a one state solution, because we all live in a world filled with roses. Not to mention that they are even lost on environmental policy, voting down an ets through basic stupidity. I agree. The basic stupidity was labor's. Not taking their ETS to a double dissolution, when the majority of supporters would of backed 'real' action on climate change. Real, not Labor's trickery. Greens will not support bad policy, that's why the ets was rejected. And instead a year later a carbon tax that was fundamentally the same thing?  Not to mention that had the ets passed, we'd at least probably would have never gotten Tony, and would still have a functioning solution today. Instead, the greens and their greed resulted in nothing.  Well done.

Nothing?


Greens are not in parliament to pass bad policy of Labor. Never has been, and never will be.
Abbott got into government because voters voted on mass, to kick out an infighting Labor Party.
Labor lost the election and trying to rewrite history will not change that fact.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:29am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:20am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk how will the greens pay for roads, hospitals and education? More Greens policies costed than Labor, Coalition http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/greens-submitted-39-policies-pbo-costed/1991406/ Come election, Greens will maintain their high standards. Wow, what an achievement, the greens have more coatings than labor.  Again, you confuse me with a labor supporter. How will the greens pay for hospitals, schools, roads, police, ambulances, etc?  Why do the greens continue to propose a tax system that leaves the status quo as it is, with rich having loopholes and the poor paying proportional to their income a lot more? I haven't forgotten your last post stating you are not a labor supporter. Come election time, the Greens policies will be costed and verified. Asking for them before the election is a red herring. No political party does that. Oh wow, looks like the greens are taking on the SAME bad habits from mainstream parties.  What pathetic wannabees.  Why vote for the greens?  They over promise and deliver us Tony Abbott.

You want funding details before knowing all of the yet to be released Greens policies.
An election is for these details.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:50am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:36am: :P :o ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:31am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:51am: Greens will always represent two type of voters 1) the protest vote 2) the loony ideologue without any sense of reality. 3) the wealthy inner city professionals who like to believe they are oh so progressive but don’t want to actually pay any price for that. These are the Greens’ base and this is why the Greens talk progressive-left but are in fact conservative–right. As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread their current Leader, DiNatale, has harmed the Greens support, did this by moving the Greens way to the right. I predict the Greens will support an increase in the GST to get their base the big tax cuts and that this will finish the Greens. We just know the greens have no real policies and are a soft cry baby party.  They probably still secretly believe in a one state solution, because we all live in a world filled with roses. Not to mention that they are even lost on environmental policy, voting down an ets through basic stupidity. I agree. The basic stupidity was labor's. Not taking their ETS to a double dissolution, when the majority of supporters would of backed 'real' action on climate change. Real, not Labor's trickery. Greens will not support bad policy, that's why the ets was rejected. And instead a year later a carbon tax that was fundamentally the same thing?  Not to mention that had the ets passed, we'd at least probably would have never gotten Tony, and would still have a functioning solution today. Instead, the greens and their greed resulted in nothing.  Well done. Nothing? Greens are not in parliament to pass bad policy of Labor. Never has been, and never will be. Abbott got into government because voters voted on mass, to kick out an infighting Labor Party. Labor lost the election and trying to rewrite history will not change that fact.

You keep telling yourself that, except we al know the greens voted against an ets which was fundamentally the same as the carbon tax.  And in doing so lit the fire that gave us idiot Tony. Its called biting off more than you can chew.  Typical greens.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:41am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:37am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:31am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:12am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 8:06am: Greens to remain opposed to GST despite voters' acceptance of change http://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/greens-to-remain-opposed-to-gst-despite-voters-acceptance-of-change-20151117-gl0xzk Yeah, well Greens are well known for their betrayals so I stick to my prediction that, with a lot of waffle and some bulldust meaningless amendments the Greens will help their good friends the Libs. Do you acknowledge the Greens have moved even further to the right and have lost a lot of support because of that? Glenn Lazarus accuses Government, Labor of 'dirty deal' over renewable energy target Independent Queensland senator Glenn Lazarus has accused the Government and Labor of doing a "dirty deal" to reduce the renewable energy target. The Coalition and Labor have agreed to a new target for renewable energy of 33,000 gigawatt hours down from the existing target of 41,000. Senator Lazarus supports the higher target. "I cannot and will not be part of this dirty deal that reduces Australia's renewable energy target (RET) and our country's commitment to the renewable energy sector," he told the Senate. "If the Abbott Government and the Opposition are successful in reducing Australia's renewable energy target, Australia will become the first country in the world to reduce a RET. "I cannot and will not be part of this despicable act." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/glenn-lazarus-accuses-government,-labor-of-'dirty'-ret-deal/6554764 Betrayals you say ! Better half a loaf than no loaf at all tho the Greens, not a Party of government, prefer hollow gestures. Now, what about the Greens’ loss of support due to DiNatale moving the Greens even further to the Right? It wasn't a choice between half and all. Labor helped to attack the renewable energy target when not helping the government, the target would of remain as is. Labor attacks Renewable Energy while claiming they support Renewable Energy. Unethical Labor. Unethical, cynical Greens, a minor party fast losing support. You obviously forgot the months and months of nothing happening in the renwables field, the projects, investment and jobs lost. Labor salvaged something, better than what abbott wanted while the Greens engaged in stunts and gestures. No wonder the Greens are losing support.

Labor destroyed Renewable targets, Renewable Investment, and Renewable jobs and you deny it.

Keep on digging.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

And instead a year later a carbon tax that was fundamentally the same thing?  Not to mention that had the ets passed, we'd at least probably would have never gotten Tony, and would still have a functioning solution today. Instead, the greens and their greed resulted in nothing.  Well done.

That is the usual result when Greens have a say in any matter. They only care about making noise and attracting attention. Some people might be attracted to the Greens but eventually realise the Greens don’t actually DO anything, don’t ACHIEVE anything.

Greens are not a Party of government.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:57pm:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA.

I'd agree with that. Shorten's number one advantage was not being Abbott.

A refresher of Labor's machinations

After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation.

Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS.

Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens.

The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck.

First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit.

Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”.

Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax.

Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014.

http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/

____ wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%. http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857 Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this.

I imagine he was say that the polls are 50:50.  That's his usual style. But there is nothing there for the Greens to be pleased about. They are languishing a long way behind and no sign of improving.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/

How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later? 

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:36pm: The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%. http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857 Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this. I imagine he was say that the polls are 50:50.  That's his usual style. But there is nothing there for the Greens to be pleased about. They are languishing a long way behind and no sign of improving.

Languishing?

Currently ahead of the last federal election results and opportunities arising to play to Greens' strengths.
The big bonus is Richard will be better at vocalise opposition to any and all attacks by liberals in the next budget.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

I guess Greens_10% is in deep denial.

Now that's not a bad name!


Greens_10%

Far more accurate that Greens_win since they win practically nothing.

Kytro wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 8:58am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:57pm: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:44pm: Perhaps you could learn to read A.P. Or is this you carrying a grudge because shorten saw off abbott. Abbott saw off Abbott. He was his own worst enemy. Shorten did SFA. I'd agree with that. Shorten's number one advantage was not being Abbott.

And now that there is no Abbott, Shorten and Labor have plunged to depths not seen since the worst days of Gillard - and getting worse.

There is a strong possibility of Labor losing by a margin bigger than that of Whitlam. There is not much chance of control of the senate, but the libs will end up with 2 or 3 extra senators. If the Greens and Labor support sinks a lot more then maybe one or two more.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:08am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:02am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:36pm: The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%. http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857 Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this. I imagine he was say that the polls are 50:50.  That's his usual style. But there is nothing there for the Greens to be pleased about. They are languishing a long way behind and no sign of improving. Languishing? Currently ahead of the last federal election results and opportunities arising to play to Greens' strengths. The big bonus is Richard will be better at vocalise opposition to any and all attacks by liberals in the next budget.

The greens need proper policies in order to put up an opposition. Not wishy washy politically correct Rubbish.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/

excuses... excuses... excuses.

Greens voted AGAINST the CPRS and that is the only fact that matters. Greens are not a party of principle. They are a party of mindless protest much of the time and the rest, just a mindless party, period.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ excuses... excuses... excuses. Greens voted AGAINST the CPRS and that is the only fact that matters. Greens are not a party of principle. They are a party of mindless protest much of the time and the rest, just a mindless party, period.

And the Libs are a party of principle?  How many of their policies have now being sidelined as a result of being poll driven?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:07am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later?

Taxpayers compensating the big polluters in the billions.
A price locked in at less than four dollars a tonne, forever.
To retrofix, billions of more tax payer funds in compensation to the big polluters.

No price signal to enact change within the economy. Massive amounts of waste of taxpayer's funds. All usual attributes of Labor policy.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ excuses... excuses... excuses. Greens voted AGAINST the CPRS and that is the only fact that matters. Greens are not a party of principle. They are a party of mindless protest much of the time and the rest, just a mindless party, period.

Greens voted against Labor waste and impotent tax. Why did the libs oppose it?

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:07am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later?  Taxpayers compensating the big polluters in the billions. A price locked in at less than four dollars a tonne, forever. To retrofix, billions of more tax payer funds in compensation to the big polluters. No price signal to enact change within the economy. Massive amounts of waste of taxpayer's funds. All usual attributes of Labor policy.

Uhmmm the carbon tax came with massive compensation to polluters. Or did you forget that one?

And the very same history you quoted proves that the original cprs was better aligned policy than that created with aid of the greens.  Well done, your over zealousness has made an ETS argument untenable for at least 2 more election cycles.  What a great outcome from the wishy wash politically correct green loonies.

Green vote, ATM, is higher than at the last election.

That is all ANY Green action is designed for. Results don’t matter to them, another half percent support does.

But Greens support is sinking, was 16 then 14 now 10%.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:14am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:07am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later?  Taxpayers compensating the big polluters in the billions. A price locked in at less than four dollars a tonne, forever. To retrofix, billions of more tax payer funds in compensation to the big polluters. No price signal to enact change within the economy. Massive amounts of waste of taxpayer's funds. All usual attributes of Labor policy. Uhmmm the carbon tax came with massive compensation to polluters. Or did you forget that one? And the very same history you quoted proves that the original cprs was better aligned policy than that created with aid of the greens.  Well done, your over zealousness has made an ETS argument untenable for at least 2 more election cycles.  What a great outcome from the wishy wash politically correct green loonies.

The carbon tax had a price signal that changed behaviour. Emissions decreased because of it.
Rudd's scheme was all bells and whistles for no effect except taxpayer's waste and labor crashing real climate change support against the rocks.

Also another reason no real action was achieved was due to weak labor leadership.

Labor's weak leadership continues.

Can you imaging shorten winning an election on climate change, even if Australia was in flames?

Can you imagine Green_10% doing the laundry?

No soap, no water needed, just the spin cycle.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:27am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:14am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:07am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later?  Taxpayers compensating the big polluters in the billions. A price locked in at less than four dollars a tonne, forever. To retrofix, billions of more tax payer funds in compensation to the big polluters. No price signal to enact change within the economy. Massive amounts of waste of taxpayer's funds. All usual attributes of Labor policy. Uhmmm the carbon tax came with massive compensation to polluters. Or did you forget that one? And the very same history you quoted proves that the original cprs was better aligned policy than that created with aid of the greens.  Well done, your over zealousness has made an ETS argument untenable for at least 2 more election cycles.  What a great outcome from the wishy wash politically correct green loonies. The carbon tax had a price signal that changed behaviour. Emissions decreased because of it. Rudd's scheme was all bells and whistles for no effect except taxpayer's waste and labor crashing real climate change support against the rocks. Also another reason no real action was achieved was due to weak labor leadership. Labor's weak leadership continues. Can you imaging shorten winning an election on climate change, even if Australia was in flames?

Now who's rewriting history?  The end outcome was the same. The initial fixed price was the issue and yet what did we find? Grattan said it best in your previous post. The carbon tax fixed price was seen as too high.  The only part the greens played a part in and they stuffed it up.  Well done, ridiculous greens.  Thanks for giving us Tony abbot. You should be proud.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:33am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:27am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:14am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:07am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later?  Taxpayers compensating the big polluters in the billions. A price locked in at less than four dollars a tonne, forever. To retrofix, billions of more tax payer funds in compensation to the big polluters. No price signal to enact change within the economy. Massive amounts of waste of taxpayer's funds. All usual attributes of Labor policy. Uhmmm the carbon tax came with massive compensation to polluters. Or did you forget that one? And the very same history you quoted proves that the original cprs was better aligned policy than that created with aid of the greens.  Well done, your over zealousness has made an ETS argument untenable for at least 2 more election cycles.  What a great outcome from the wishy wash politically correct green loonies. The carbon tax had a price signal that changed behaviour. Emissions decreased because of it. Rudd's scheme was all bells and whistles for no effect except taxpayer's waste and labor crashing real climate change support against the rocks. Also another reason no real action was achieved was due to weak labor leadership. Labor's weak leadership continues. Can you imaging shorten winning an election on climate change, even if Australia was in flames? Now who's rewriting history?  The end outcome was the same. The initial fixed price was the issue and yet what did we find? Grattan said it best in your previous post. The carbon tax fixed price was seen as too high.  The only part the greens played a part in and they stuffed it up.  Well done, ridiculous greens.  Thanks for giving us Tony abbot. You should be proud.

You are the one re-writing history, pretending labor had no part in it's landslide loss to Abbott.

Labor couldn't articulate it's message then ... and with shorten, will repeat the same mistake again this election.

Does anyone think shorten could persuade them on anything besides not voting Labor?

Labor's only hope is to change leaders. Unfortunately labor will sleepwalk into three more in the wilderness.

This is why Greens must cut Labor loose.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:33am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:27am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:14am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:07am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ How cute.  So why did the greens vote against fundamentally the same policy they voted fora year and a bit later?  Taxpayers compensating the big polluters in the billions. A price locked in at less than four dollars a tonne, forever. To retrofix, billions of more tax payer funds in compensation to the big polluters. No price signal to enact change within the economy. Massive amounts of waste of taxpayer's funds. All usual attributes of Labor policy. Uhmmm the carbon tax came with massive compensation to polluters. Or did you forget that one? And the very same history you quoted proves that the original cprs was better aligned policy than that created with aid of the greens.  Well done, your over zealousness has made an ETS argument untenable for at least 2 more election cycles.  What a great outcome from the wishy wash politically correct green loonies. The carbon tax had a price signal that changed behaviour. Emissions decreased because of it. Rudd's scheme was all bells and whistles for no effect except taxpayer's waste and labor crashing real climate change support against the rocks. Also another reason no real action was achieved was due to weak labor leadership. Labor's weak leadership continues. Can you imaging shorten winning an election on climate change, even if Australia was in flames? Now who's rewriting history?  The end outcome was the same. The initial fixed price was the issue and yet what did we find? Grattan said it best in your previous post. The carbon tax fixed price was seen as too high.  The only part the greens played a part in and they stuffed it up.  Well done, ridiculous greens.  Thanks for giving us Tony abbot. You should be proud. You are the one re-writing history, pretending labor had no part in it's landslide loss to Abbott. Labor couldn't articulate it's message then ... and with shorten, will repeat the same mistake again this election. Does anyone think shorten could persuade them on anything besides not voting Labor? Labor's only hope is to change leaders. Unfortunately labor will sleepwalk into another threes of wilderness. This is why Greens must cut Labor loose.

What does any of this have to do with labor? Tony is direct result of greens greed.

Labor didn't partake in the last election?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:13am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:12am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ excuses... excuses... excuses. Greens voted AGAINST the CPRS and that is the only fact that matters. Greens are not a party of principle. They are a party of mindless protest much of the time and the rest, just a mindless party, period. And the Libs are a party of principle?  How many of their policies have now being sidelined as a result of being poll driven?

When people support your stance, it is considered bad form to them attack them. There are other threads for that.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:45am:

Labor didn't partake in the last election?

Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

Can you imagine Green_10% doing the laundry? No soap, no water needed, just the spin cycle.

thats TWICE you've said something good!

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:13am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:12am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:00am: A refresher of Labor's machinations After extensive policy design work and economic analysis, Rudd’s government developed the legislation for an ETS, naming it the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Although the intention was to introduce the scheme in July 2010, it was twice rejected by the Senate when the then opposition leader Malcom Turnbull lost his position to Tony Abbott, mainly over Turnbull’s support for the CPRS, and the Greens failed to support the legislation. Rather than take up the trigger of a double dissolution election, the Rudd government instead opted, in April 2010, to defer the CPRS. Julia Gillard deposed Rudd as prime minister in June 2010, and went to the 2010 election having infamously declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Once elected, Gillard worked diligently with a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. The result was the Clean Energy Future package, consisting of a successor to the CPRS (inevitably branded the carbon tax), as well as other complementary mechanisms and new agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This was passed into law in 2011 with the support of the Greens. The central element of the new ETS was that it would begin with a fixed permit price of A$23 per tonne of CO2 from July 1, 2012, and would move to a market-based pricing scheme three years later. This fixed price was a compromise between extreme views, but broadly consistent with existing projections for the European carbon price. It came badly unstuck. First, the European carbon price collapsed, leaving Australia’s price open to being labelled as unreasonably high and likely to deliver more economic damage than environmental benefit. Second, it opened the door for Tony Abbott to label the scheme as nothing more than a “great big tax”. Worse followed for Labor as a result of Gillard’s decision not to play semantics and to allow the “carbon tax” label to stick. She subsequently acknowledged the terrible political price she paid for not arguing against a fixed carbon price being labelled a tax. Not only was the government unable to sell the benefit of its policy, it failed to overcome the accusation that Gillard had misled the electorate in the election campaign. Abbott was then elected in 2013, with the axing of the tax as a key commitment. He executed that task in July 2014. http://grattan.edu.au/news/the-latest-turn-in-the-twisty-history-of-labors-climate-policies/ excuses... excuses... excuses. Greens voted AGAINST the CPRS and that is the only fact that matters. Greens are not a party of principle. They are a party of mindless protest much of the time and the rest, just a mindless party, period. And the Libs are a party of principle?  How many of their policies have now being sidelined as a result of being poll driven? When people support your stance, it is considered bad form to them attack them. There are other threads for that.

You support an even worse evil than the greens.   You supported a tony led liberal party, the very notion of populist bullcrap gone wrong!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens.

Yet the question was Labor part of the last election?
Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott.
Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others.

It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives.

By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott?

Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:04am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott? Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles.

No i forgot, greens principle is to implement a policy that lasts not even 2 years and fundamentally destroys the debate in the country.
WELL DONE GREENS

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:04am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott? Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles.

Why all greens polices are impotent! ;)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:04am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott? Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles. No i forgot, greens principle is to implement a policy that lasts not even 2 years and fundamentally destroys the debate in the country. WELL DONE GREENS

The policy only lasted two years because of Labor's inability to defend and sell it's own policies.
The same attribute in Shorten. An inability to defend and sell Labor's position.

Will Greens be responsible for Shorten losing the next election too?

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:04am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott? Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles. Why all greens polices are impotent! ;)

No where was that claimed.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:37am: Greens does not understand that irrespective of the Greens polling numbers or vote that they are the biggest loser in any election won by the Liberals. Having more Greens senators being ignored in parliament makes no difference to green policy or environment issues. At the moment the Greens seem to have captain stupid in charge who also does not understand this obvious fact. When push comes to shove, is there really that much difference between the two olds besides a little window dressing. Look how labor has turned it's back on workers by supporting the China FTA, and labor's support of the TPP. And when measuring stupidity of leadership ...  finally a winner for labor.

Ask yourself who tried to push trough a carbon trading scheme that was blocked by the Liberals and greens and then again who implemented a fixed price on carbon and who dismantled it.

Yes there is a huge difference on green issues between Labor and the Liberals.

As Hissy Pyne once said he has the solution to all green issues - green concrete. Nothing has changed except for green socks on saint Patricks day.

It is an indisputable fact that Labor plus the greens can get action on environmental matters and the Liberal plus the Greens will result in a lot of laughter about the prospect of environmental change.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives.

last election they could have argued until they were blue in the face while the libs said nothing and Abbott would still have won. ...

labor lost because of their internal turmoil. It had nothing to do with policies.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:21am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:04am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott? Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles. Why all greens polices are impotent! ;) No where was that claimed.

I believe it was ... check the highlighted bit

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

The policy only lasted two years because of Labor's inability to defend and sell it's own policies.

A. It wasn't labors policy, it was a greens policy. It was hoisted onto labor in order to win government

B. Looks like the greens did a pretty crap job of selling THEIR policy, no?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 1:49pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:49am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:37am: Greens does not understand that irrespective of the Greens polling numbers or vote that they are the biggest loser in any election won by the Liberals. Having more Greens senators being ignored in parliament makes no difference to green policy or environment issues. At the moment the Greens seem to have captain stupid in charge who also does not understand this obvious fact. When push comes to shove, is there really that much difference between the two olds besides a little window dressing. Look how labor has turned it's back on workers by supporting the China FTA, and labor's support of the TPP. And when measuring stupidity of leadership ...  finally a winner for labor. Ask yourself who tried to push trough a carbon trading scheme that was blocked by the Liberals and greens and then again who implemented a fixed price on carbon and who dismantled it. Yes there is a huge difference on green issues between Labor and the Liberals. As Hissy Pyne once said he has the solution to all green issues - green concrete. Nothing has changed except for green socks on saint Patricks day. It is an indisputable fact that Labor plus the greens can get action on environmental matters and the Liberal plus the Greens will result in a lot of laughter about the prospect of environmental change.

Rudd/Labor saw a major movement of people demanding action on deadly climate change. Rather than lead this group down a meaningful path, Labor saw it as a danger, especially to it's held coal seats, and so set a path to crash this movement against the rocks.

Labor are now working the similar plan on renewable energy, another threat to their currently held coal seats. 

Labor is no friend of sustainable Australia.

As devious as the conservatives are within the liberals, the progressives libs have an opportunity. Sure highly unlikely much will come from this .

Labor had it's chance and failed. Time to watch the signs from the Libs, see if they can prove everyone wrong and actually take climate change seriously.

If Libs fail, then the only solution is the removal of both Labor and Liberal parties.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:18pm:

Rudd/Labor saw a major movement of people demanding action on deadly climate change. Rather than lead this group down a meaningful path, Labor saw it as a danger, especially to it's held coal seats, and so set a path to crash this movement against the rocks. Labor are now working the similar plan on renewable energy, another threat to their currently held coal seats. Labor is no friend of sustainable Australia. As devious as the conservatives are within the liberals, the progressives libs have an opportunity. Sure highly unlikely much will come from this . Labor had it's chance and failed. Time to watch the signs from the Libs, see if they can prove everyone wrong and actually take climate change seriously. If Libs fail, then the only solution is the removal of both Labor and Liberal parties.

what are you demented? The greens voted AGAINST an ETS.

Don't cry now that because there is no ETS.

John Smith wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:07pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:26am: aussie100percent wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:21am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:15am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:04am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:46am: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:45am: Labor didn't partake in the last election? Greens went against their own principles in their over zealous attempt to influence policy. Pathetic greens. Yet the question was Labor part of the last election? Their inability to argue their policies empowered Abbott. Same as Shorten's inability to articulate will empower others. It's up to the Greens to gain lost Labor vote rather than have it go to the conservatives. By voting against their principles and giving rise to tony abbott? Labor waste and impotent polices are not in line with Greens' principles. Why all greens polices are impotent! ;) No where was that claimed. I believe it was ... check the highlighted bit

Prior to that opinion, it wasn't.

John Smith wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:09pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:25am: The policy only lasted two years because of Labor's inability to defend and sell it's own policies. A. It wasn't labors policy, it was a greens policy. It was hoisted onto labor in order to win government B. Looks like the greens did a pretty crap job of selling THEIR policy, no?

Victim Labor.
The poor me syndrome.
Labor so desperate, they would sign up to anything.

If this is the case, labor doesn't deserve government ever again.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:09pm: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:25am: The policy only lasted two years because of Labor's inability to defend and sell it's own policies. A. It wasn't labors policy, it was a greens policy. It was hoisted onto labor in order to win government B. Looks like the greens did a pretty crap job of selling THEIR policy, no? Victim Labor. The poor me syndrome. Labor so desperate, they would sign up to anything. If this is the case, labor doesn't deserve government ever again.

Don't try to change the topic, why were the greens so crap at selling their policy? 

John Smith wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:19pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:18pm: Rudd/Labor saw a major movement of people demanding action on deadly climate change. Rather than lead this group down a meaningful path, Labor saw it as a danger, especially to it's held coal seats, and so set a path to crash this movement against the rocks. Labor are now working the similar plan on renewable energy, another threat to their currently held coal seats. Labor is no friend of sustainable Australia. As devious as the conservatives are within the liberals, the progressives libs have an opportunity. Sure highly unlikely much will come from this . Labor had it's chance and failed. Time to watch the signs from the Libs, see if they can prove everyone wrong and actually take climate change seriously. If Libs fail, then the only solution is the removal of both Labor and Liberal parties. what are you demented? The greens voted AGAINST an ETS. Don't cry now that because there is no ETS.

It wasn't an ETS. It was inaction locked in with massive compensation to the big polluters.
Designed by the coal lobby and labor, with the purpose of getting the AGW denialists within the liberals to back it.

The reason labor refused to take the greatest moral issue of our generation to a DD. They thought during the scrutiny of an election, even their stupid rusted on support base may wake up to the con too ... and then dump labor for good.

John Smith wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:23pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:09pm: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:25am: The policy only lasted two years because of Labor's inability to defend and sell it's own policies. A. It wasn't labors policy, it was a greens policy. It was hoisted onto labor in order to win government B. Looks like the greens did a pretty crap job of selling THEIR policy, no? Victim Labor. The poor me syndrome. Labor so desperate, they would sign up to anything. If this is the case, labor doesn't deserve government ever again. Don't try to change the topic, why were the greens so crap at selling their policy?

You implied Greens manipulated labor into their carbon tax.

Have you changed your opinion now?

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:08am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 9:02am: ____ wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:36pm: The Ipsos poll has given the Coalition a sizable jump in the poll aggregates.  Kevin Bonham’s aggregate is now at 53.6% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.8% gain for the Coalition since last week. The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack is at 54.4% 2PP to the Coalition, a 0.9% gain for the Coalition since last week. Primary votes are 46.3% for the Coalition, 30.7% for Labor and 11.2% for the Greens; Labor has lost 1.6% on primary vote since last week, with Others gaining 0.8%. http://theconversation.com/big-move-to-coalition-in-ipsos-not-replicated-in-other-polls-50857 Wonder how Jovial Monk will spin this. I imagine he was say that the polls are 50:50.  That's his usual style. But there is nothing there for the Greens to be pleased about. They are languishing a long way behind and no sign of improving. Languishing? Currently ahead of the last federal election results and opportunities arising to play to Greens' strengths. The big bonus is Richard will be better at vocalise opposition to any and all attacks by liberals in the next budget.

If you are polling 11% then at the election you will get 8%

Get used to inconvenient facts.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 1:49pm: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:49am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:37am: Greens does not understand that irrespective of the Greens polling numbers or vote that they are the biggest loser in any election won by the Liberals. Having more Greens senators being ignored in parliament makes no difference to green policy or environment issues. At the moment the Greens seem to have captain stupid in charge who also does not understand this obvious fact. When push comes to shove, is there really that much difference between the two olds besides a little window dressing. Look how labor has turned it's back on workers by supporting the China FTA, and labor's support of the TPP. And when measuring stupidity of leadership ...  finally a winner for labor. Ask yourself who tried to push trough a carbon trading scheme that was blocked by the Liberals and greens and then again who implemented a fixed price on carbon and who dismantled it. Yes there is a huge difference on green issues between Labor and the Liberals. As Hissy Pyne once said he has the solution to all green issues - green concrete. Nothing has changed except for green socks on saint Patricks day. It is an indisputable fact that Labor plus the greens can get action on environmental matters and the Liberal plus the Greens will result in a lot of laughter about the prospect of environmental change. Rudd/Labor saw a major movement of people demanding action on deadly climate change. Rather than lead this group down a meaningful path, Labor saw it as a danger, especially to it's held coal seats, and so set a path to crash this movement against the rocks. Labor are now working the similar plan on renewable energy, another threat to their currently held coal seats.  Labor is no friend of sustainable Australia. As devious as the conservatives are within the liberals, the progressives libs have an opportunity. Sure highly unlikely much will come from this . Labor had it's chance and failed. Time to watch the signs from the Libs, see if they can prove everyone wrong and actually take climate change seriously. If Libs fail, then the only solution is the removal of both Labor and Liberal parties.

You should write fiction. You wouldnt need to change a word.

Honestly polls aren't that useful this far out from an election when especially the Media and Canberra Press Gallery are giving Turnbull a free ride on everything at the moment. It's actually pretty sickening listening to Libs and Media keep spouting this "Sharing economy digital revolution" crap, but then not a single mention or report of the NBN has been brought up. When talking about a IT revolution.. you think the largest IT infrastructure project in the world would be newsworthy, but nope, that would actually show what an ideological luddite Turnbull actually is.

There basically also non-stop shitting on Shorten in the media. The Canberra press Gallery despises Shorten and they don't hide it. The vast majority of editorials on Labor are negative, even though Labor aren't even in Government and Labor policy is superior in essentially every regard to Liberal policy and everyone really knows it.

When we get closer to the election and this bullshit Honeymoon period wears off I think we will get a more accurate look at the picture, I honestly believe Libs/Lab 2PP will be neck and neck at the next election. Surely Abbott and Liberal Party policy cannot be out of the public mind so quickly.

I think Greens will see an increase in vote as well from Labor and Nationals defectors, I suspect Greens primary will be around 14-15%

Agree with all that except the bit about the Greens.

DiNatale is moving way further right.

In an election about the economy the Greens have nothing to offer, only the major parties do.

Greens on 5% primary vote at the election.

NBN is a sleeper, very little gets reported even on places like ZDNet. However, the penetration of Netflix will cause increasing congestion and the NBN will be a minor irritant Labor can use. The cost of the MTM will be approaching $100bn by then too, assuming it is actually being rolled out.

Greens will gain votes, everyone is predicting it, they are stealing Labor left votes and Nationals votes especially from farmers terrified of CSG.

For as far as the Greens have moved right, they are still far to the left of Labor.

No, Greens have long been to the right of Labor. They may now be to the right of the Libs!

No, Greens support will slump.

The Electrical Trades Union has snubbed Labor at its National Officers conference this week, asking a federal Greens MP to open the event for the first time.

Greens Treasury spokesman Adam Bandt will be guest speaker on the first day of the ETU's two-day conference in Adelaide, starting on Tuesday. No one from the federal Labor Party has been invited to speak on either day.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1447843004/0

Seems only J.M is confused what is left and what is right ... politically.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:25pm: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:23pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 2:09pm: ____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:25am: The policy only lasted two years because of Labor's inability to defend and sell it's own policies. A. It wasn't labors policy, it was a greens policy. It was hoisted onto labor in order to win government B. Looks like the greens did a pretty crap job of selling THEIR policy, no? Victim Labor. The poor me syndrome. Labor so desperate, they would sign up to anything. If this is the case, labor doesn't deserve government ever again. Don't try to change the topic, why were the greens so crap at selling their policy?  You implied Greens manipulated labor into their carbon tax. Have you changed your opinion now?

I didn't imply anything, I stated a fact . Now back to the question,  why were the greens so crap at selling their policy?

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

Honestly polls aren't that useful this far out from an election when especially the Media and Canberra Press Gallery are giving Turnbull a free ride on everything at the moment. It's actually pretty sickening listening to Libs and Media keep spouting this "Sharing economy digital revolution" crap, but then not a single mention or report of the NBN has been brought up. When talking about a IT revolution.. you think the largest IT infrastructure project in the world would be newsworthy, but nope, that would actually show what an ideological luddite Turnbull actually is. There basically also non-stop shitting on Shorten in the media. The Canberra press Gallery despises Shorten and they don't hide it. The vast majority of editorials on Labor are negative, even though Labor aren't even in Government and Labor policy is superior in essentially every regard to Liberal policy and everyone really knows it. When we get closer to the election and this bullshit Honeymoon period wears off I think we will get a more accurate look at the picture, I honestly believe Libs/Lab 2PP will be neck and neck at the next election. Surely Abbott and Liberal Party policy cannot be out of the public mind so quickly. I think Greens will see an increase in vote as well from Labor and Nationals defectors, I suspect Greens primary will be around 14-15%

What a joke you are. Labors policies are being rejected hand-over-fist by a growing MAJORITY of Australian voters. The polls are indeed meaningful, because even with the negatives of promoting a higher GST, every week brings a higher coalition vote and a worse Labor vote.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

Honestly polls aren't that useful this far out from an election when especially the Media and Canberra Press Gallery are giving Turnbull a free ride on everything at the moment. It's actually pretty sickening listening to Libs and Media keep spouting this "Sharing economy digital revolution" crap, but then not a single mention or report of the NBN has been brought up. When talking about a IT revolution.. you think the largest IT infrastructure project in the world would be newsworthy, but nope, that would actually show what an ideological luddite Turnbull actually is. There basically also non-stop shitting on Shorten in the media. The Canberra press Gallery despises Shorten and they don't hide it. The vast majority of editorials on Labor are negative, even though Labor aren't even in Government and Labor policy is superior in essentially every regard to Liberal policy and everyone really knows it. When we get closer to the election and this bullshit Honeymoon period wears off I think we will get a more accurate look at the picture, I honestly believe Libs/Lab 2PP will be neck and neck at the next election. Surely Abbott and Liberal Party policy cannot be out of the public mind so quickly. I think Greens will see an increase in vote as well from Labor and Nationals defectors, I suspect Greens primary will be around 14-15%

REALLY wishful thinking. They will be lucky to make double digits.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Greens will gain votes, everyone is predicting it, they are stealing Labor left votes and Nationals votes especially from farmers terrified of CSG. For as far as the Greens have moved right, they are still far to the left of Labor.

Who is this 'everyone'? With the Green vote slowly dropping again and an election result unlikely to hit double digits, you really are making this up as you go along.

BTW the farmers ARENT terrified of CSG at all. A very vocal and largely uninformed minority are. Most of the farmers are happy for the additional income.

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

The Electrical Trades Union has snubbed Labor at its National Officers conference this week, asking a federal Greens MP to open the event for the first time. Greens Treasury spokesman Adam Bandt will be guest speaker on the first day of the ETU's two-day conference in Adelaide, starting on Tuesday. No one from the federal Labor Party has been invited to speak on either day. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1447843004/0 Seems only J.M is confused what is left and what is right ... politically.

Wow. They finally found someone willing to listen to Bandt. Poor buggers!

Only 17% support CSG exploration on farming land: poll


FEWER than one in five people support coal seam gas exploration on New South Wales farming land, research shows.

A Fairfax/Nielsen poll conducted from March 22-24 found just 17% of people agreed with fracking on agricultural land.

Three-quarters of respondents said they were opposed to CSG exploration on farming land, while 7% said they didn't know.

Interestingly, a breakdown of the poll numbers showed there was almost no difference in the views held by regional respondents and those living in Sydney.

Men were more likely to support CSG exploration, with 23% saying they supported the practice and 70% opposed.

Just 12% of women were in favour of fracking on farm land and 80% were against it.

More than a quarter (27%) of people in the 18-14 age bracket were in favour of CSG exploration, while 61% were opposed.

Greens (90%) and independent voters (82%) led the way in terms of their opposition to CSG, with Coalition voters coming in at 75% and Labor 73%.

The polling numbers, which had a 3% margin of error, are consistent with surveys from around the state on the question of CSG mining.

For example, in Lismore last year, almost 90% of people voted "no" at the local government elections when asked if they supported CSG expansion in their area.


http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/poll-shows-17-per-cent-support-csg-farming-land/1816563/

Have they cryogenically frozen Bull Shitten.......he's conspicuous by his absence lately........not that there's anything wrong with that.....

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 5:53pm: The Electrical Trades Union has snubbed Labor at its National Officers conference this week, asking a federal Greens MP to open the event for the first time. Greens Treasury spokesman Adam Bandt will be guest speaker on the first day of the ETU's two-day conference in Adelaide, starting on Tuesday. No one from the federal Labor Party has been invited to speak on either day. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1447843004/0 Seems only J.M is confused what is left and what is right ... politically. Wow. They finally found someone willing to listen to Bandt. Poor buggers!

Greens_10% likes to sling off at me but is not honest enough to comment on the slumping Greens vote. A few weeks ago he was crowing and calling the Greens a major party when IPSOS recorded Green support as 16%. Now it is 10%.

DiNatale has pissed people off. His Bill to help the Libs by changing the Senate voting is not popular.

Yes, the Greens poached support from Labor by appearing more left, more progressive. That is no longer possible.

Muttley wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Have they cryogenically frozen Bull Shitten.......he's conspicuous by his absence lately........not that there's anything wrong with that.....

have you seen any of the labor party... they always disappear when things get tight..probably folding their white flags...just in case our borders dont hold... ::) ::)

mariacostel wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 5:53pm: The Electrical Trades Union has snubbed Labor at its National Officers conference this week, asking a federal Greens MP to open the event for the first time. Greens Treasury spokesman Adam Bandt will be guest speaker on the first day of the ETU's two-day conference in Adelaide, starting on Tuesday. No one from the federal Labor Party has been invited to speak on either day. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1447843004/0 Seems only J.M is confused what is left and what is right ... politically. Wow. They finally found someone willing to listen to Bandt. Poor buggers!

I wouldnt bet on that.. I would say both parties have people running in the opposite direction..


does anyone think the Electrical guys will honestly take anything adam ant has to say...as being relevant???

hilarious.. I bet he was the only one to put his hand up..

cods wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:44pm:

Muttley wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:06pm: Have they cryogenically frozen Bull Shitten.......he's conspicuous by his absence lately........not that there's anything wrong with that..... have you seen any of the labor party... they always disappear when things get tight..probably folding their white flags...just in case our borders dont hold... ::) ::)

They've gone into their bomb shelter with aluminium foil hats firmly affixed  :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:47pm:

cods wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 10:44pm: Muttley wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 7:06pm: Have they cryogenically frozen Bull Shitten.......he's conspicuous by his absence lately........not that there's anything wrong with that..... have you seen any of the labor party... they always disappear when things get tight..probably folding their white flags...just in case our borders dont hold... ::) ::) They've gone into their bomb shelter with aluminium foil hats firmly affixed  :D :D :D

it is a worry!!! I mean he could have been kidnapped by the evil Arabs...and you know we never negotiate with terrorists dont you?...bye Bill

____ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 6:57pm:

Only 17% support CSG exploration on farming land: poll FEWER than one in five people support coal seam gas exploration on New South Wales farming land, research shows. A Fairfax/Nielsen poll conducted from March 22-24 found just 17% of people agreed with fracking on agricultural land. Three-quarters of respondents said they were opposed to CSG exploration on farming land, while 7% said they didn't know. Interestingly, a breakdown of the poll numbers showed there was almost no difference in the views held by regional respondents and those living in Sydney. Men were more likely to support CSG exploration, with 23% saying they supported the practice and 70% opposed. Just 12% of women were in favour of fracking on farm land and 80% were against it. More than a quarter (27%) of people in the 18-14 age bracket were in favour of CSG exploration, while 61% were opposed. Greens (90%) and independent voters (82%) led the way in terms of their opposition to CSG, with Coalition voters coming in at 75% and Labor 73%. The polling numbers, which had a 3% margin of error, are consistent with surveys from around the state on the question of CSG mining. For example, in Lismore last year, almost 90% of people voted "no" at the local government elections when asked if they supported CSG expansion in their area. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/poll-shows-17-per-cent-support-csg-farming-land/1816563/

And how many of those people have the slightest idea what Fracking actually is? 1% 2%?  and yes, it matters. A poll asking peoples opinions on a subject they are utterly ignorant of is worthless.

Muttley wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Have they cryogenically frozen Bull Shitten.......he's conspicuous by his absence lately........not that there's anything wrong with that.....

you'd rather he tried to score cheap political points from the terrorist activity? :D :D

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:15am:

And how many of those people have the slightest idea what Fracking actually is? 1% 2%?  and yes, it matters. A poll asking peoples opinions on a subject they are utterly ignorant of is worthless.

they don't need to ... they know they don't want to risk their farmland. That's all they need to know and ignoring the public because you think you know better is exactly why Newman got shown the door after one term after having won by the largest margin ever :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:42am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:15am: And how many of those people have the slightest idea what Fracking actually is? 1% 2%?  and yes, it matters. A poll asking peoples opinions on a subject they are utterly ignorant of is worthless. they don't need to ... they know they don't want to risk their farmland. That's all they need to know and ignoring the public because you think you know better is exactly why Newman got shown the door after one term after having won by the largest margin ever :D :D :D

That one always stings longy after his prediction of a comfortable win for Newman  :)

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:15am:

____ wrote on Nov 20th, 2015 at 6:57pm: Only 17% support CSG exploration on farming land: poll FEWER than one in five people support coal seam gas exploration on New South Wales farming land, research shows. A Fairfax/Nielsen poll conducted from March 22-24 found just 17% of people agreed with fracking on agricultural land. Three-quarters of respondents said they were opposed to CSG exploration on farming land, while 7% said they didn't know. Interestingly, a breakdown of the poll numbers showed there was almost no difference in the views held by regional respondents and those living in Sydney. Men were more likely to support CSG exploration, with 23% saying they supported the practice and 70% opposed. Just 12% of women were in favour of fracking on farm land and 80% were against it. More than a quarter (27%) of people in the 18-14 age bracket were in favour of CSG exploration, while 61% were opposed. Greens (90%) and independent voters (82%) led the way in terms of their opposition to CSG, with Coalition voters coming in at 75% and Labor 73%. The polling numbers, which had a 3% margin of error, are consistent with surveys from around the state on the question of CSG mining. For example, in Lismore last year, almost 90% of people voted "no" at the local government elections when asked if they supported CSG expansion in their area. http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/poll-shows-17-per-cent-support-csg-farming-land/1816563/ And how many of those people have the slightest idea what Fracking actually is? 1% 2%?  and yes, it matters. A poll asking peoples opinions on a subject they are utterly ignorant of is worthless.

More like the fracking mob are not selling their toxic process well, rather than people not understanding the risk.

John Smith wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:42am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:15am: And how many of those people have the slightest idea what Fracking actually is? 1% 2%?  and yes, it matters. A poll asking peoples opinions on a subject they are utterly ignorant of is worthless. they don't need to ... they know they don't want to risk their farmland. That's all they need to know and ignoring the public because you think you know better is exactly why Newman got shown the door after one term after having won by the largest margin ever :D :D :D

Not susprising that you would trumpet IGNORANCE over facts. 

You mean Newman didn't hit the skids after one term - a total waste of time term?

Damn - the media have been playing us for fools....

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/hydraulic-fracturing.html

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 12:07am:

You mean Newman didn't hit the skids after one term - a total waste of time term? Damn - the media have been playing us for fools.... http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/hydraulic-fracturing.html

You think fracking caused the LNP to lose the election?  A process that continues today?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 11:08am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:15am: And how many of those people have the slightest idea what Fracking actually is? 1% 2%?  and yes, it matters. A poll asking peoples opinions on a subject they are utterly ignorant of is worthless. they don't need to ... they know they don't want to risk their farmland. That's all they need to know and ignoring the public because you think you know better is exactly why Newman got shown the door after one term after having won by the largest margin ever :D :D :D Not susprising that you would trumpet IGNORANCE over facts.

no, I've never trumpeted you Maria

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 12:07am: You mean Newman didn't hit the skids after one term - a total waste of time term? Damn - the media have been playing us for fools.... http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/hydraulic-fracturing.html You think fracking caused the LNP to lose the election?  A process that continues today?

Where did I say that?  The reference was to assist the unworldly to actually review the issue in some meaningful way.

It was Newmad's unmitigated arrogance - something you need to consider carefully - and his blatant attachment to the 'dig it up at any cost' groups that caused his Downfall...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 8:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 5:28pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 12:07am: You mean Newman didn't hit the skids after one term - a total waste of time term? Damn - the media have been playing us for fools.... http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/hydraulic-fracturing.html You think fracking caused the LNP to lose the election?  A process that continues today? Where did I say that?  The reference was to assist the unworldly to actually review the issue in some meaningful way. It was Newmad's unmitigated arrogance - something you need to consider carefully - and his blatant attachment to the 'dig it up at any cost' groups that caused his Downfall...

YOU QUOTED A LINK TO FRACKING!