Australian Politics Forum - Labor Crashes In Latest Poll

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #60 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:08am

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

____ 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-othe...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7344 Sydney Gender:	Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll Reply #61 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:08am 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #62 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:11am

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

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

____ 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #63 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:11am

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

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

____ 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-othe...

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.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #64 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:12am

____ 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-clima...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #65 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:13am

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

____ 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-clima...

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?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #66 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:14am

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

____ 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-clima...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #67 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:15am

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

____ 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-clima...

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #68 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:17am

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

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

____ 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-clima...

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.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Online Dogs not cats! Posts: 47095 Gender:	Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll Reply #69 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:23am 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%.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #70 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:27am

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

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

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

____ 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-clima...

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Online Dogs not cats! Posts: 47095 Gender:	Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll Reply #71 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:29am Can you imagine Green_10% doing the laundry? No soap, no water needed, just the spin cycle.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #72 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:33am

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

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

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

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

____ 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-clima...

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.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #73 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:40am

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

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

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

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

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

____ 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-clima...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor Crashes In Latest Poll
Reply #74 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 9:43am

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

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

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

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

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

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

____ 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-clima...

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.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged