Bob Brown- The real prime minister

[MightyFighting]

Was Meg Lees the secret Prime Minister when she made Howard remove the GST from food?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Was Meg Lees the secret Prime Minister when she made Howard remove the GST from food?

Nope Dead Party Walking when she did that.

 

[Inferno]

No idea. The coalition involves a single green and a series of other independents but the power to pass legislation rests with the Greens from 1 July 2011 and its that power that will get us a carbon tax ...

The Victorian Parliament and its working our of very little interest TBH.

Whoosh...

Well you were trying to support a statement that the Libs were equally to blame as the ALP for the current power position of the Greens. Its a flawed premis based on what I wrote... the fact that you accept that and yet maintain your position suggests a one-eyed approach to the matter. Its self-evident that the ALP has agreed to give up core committments as part of a sop to the Greens, that is 100% the doing of the ALP who could have simply walked away, agreed that a coalition wasn't possible on the terms they presented to the public and we could have had a fresh election.

They wanted power at all costs = 100% their responsibility.

But I don't entirely agree with him, I just thought it was ridiculous that you interpreted what he said as "everything bad is the Libs fault" and that to absolve the Libs of this (well at least in your opinion, I quite like the Greens having this much power personally since someone had to drag Labor back to the left after they decided to pretend to be the Liberals) is silly. The Libs do have to cop some of the blame, and I don't understand how accepting the fact that the Greens wouldn't have a HoR seat and hence this level of influence if it wasn't for the Libs political games is so hard to accept. The Libs chose to unleash the Greens in Melbourne, and combined with Labor's ineptness, lack of conviction and grab for power has led us to where we are now.

Thanks. You want to point out the "bile" in the post you were responding to and where it was "laden" with same?

Or is it better you toddle off back under the bridge with the other folk of your ilk?

You know what, it was uncalled for and I apologise. But would you like me to collect those blue pom poms and blue tinted glasses you have on order on my way back to the bridge?

I agree with the premise but not the title of this thread. The Greens ran an election campaign with under-scrutinised policies and we're now seeing the fallout from that in what Labor is implementing.

Hopefully this is a wakeup call to everyone - media, voting public, major parties, even the Greens themselves. The Greens have reached the tipping point where proper accountability for their platform is now needed.

Which is why part of the deal was that the Greens could get Treasury costing their policies. It was hard for them to be scrutinised when the major parties were basically pretending they didn't exist for most of the campaign, probably out of fear of a Lib Dem like explosion in support and prominence. Not to mention the media basically went down the same road of ignoring them as well.

 

[noddy]

I do not approve of how the greens & the other bits & pieces are able to dictate to the government of the day but that is what we are left with & it would have been the same if Abbotts bribe fest had have won the day.

I wonder if the current climate will entice a revival of Pauline Hanson ? (note gap before ? Eagle )

With all the hate & bile being revved up by Abbott & his shock jock buddies it is begging for a Tea Party intervention hence come on down Pauline Hanson & the Lamington One Nation Party..

 

[Caesar]

Which is why part of the deal was that the Greens could get Treasury costing their policies.

Which included retrospective costing of their 2010 platform. Pop quiz - exactly how many policies have the Greens sent to Treasury to be costed in the last six months?

The answer is somewhere between zero and none. I wonder why.

It was hard for them to be scrutinised when the major parties were basically pretending they didn't exist for most of the campaign, probably out of fear of a Lib Dem like explosion in support and prominence. Not to mention the media basically went down the same road of ignoring them as well.

You make it sound like the Greens want more scrutiny of their policies, because that's all it will take - give them some oxygen and Greens fever will sweep the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps that's what the true believers in the rank and file think, but the leadership know that flying under the radar is one of the biggest factors in their success to this point - masking their substantial policy weaknesses and capitalising on the feel-good factor of perhaps the most valuable brand in Australian politics.

Maybe the Greens will become the Lib Dems of Australia someday, but like the Lib Dems they will have to get serious about developing real policy first. For the time being the major parties are right to ignore the Greens because it's not politically worthwhile engaging them in a national three way contest when they are only relevant in a couple of seats. It takes them off-message to the detriment of the broader campaign.

The media definitely needs to apply more scrutiny, but unfortunately at present they either have a vendetta against them (News) or they just see their policies as laughable and not worth column inches (Fairfax). The latter may be true but from the voting figures it's clearly not as self-evident as one would presume, thus there is a need for the blowtorch to be applied.

The result will be that the Greens will either recede back into irrelevancy, or develop into a viable third party. Either way the Australian public will be better off than the current situation, where we have an amateurly-run outfit earning large numbers of votes and influencing policy based primarily on vague feel-good notions of environmentalism and generous social attitudes.

 

[MightyFighting]

Nope Dead Party Walking when she did that.

Miss the point much?

 

[tandino]

The Victorian Parliament and its working our of very little interest TBH.

Both parties around the country would be wise to learn from what Baillieu did in Victoria. Labor made a concerted effort to focus on the issue of the Liberals handing the Greens seats in the inner suburbs, and Ted making that move left Labor holding the bag that they were bitching about for weeks.

It probably won them the election.

 

[Inferno]

Which included retrospective costing of their 2010 platform. Pop quiz - exactly how many policies have the Greens sent to Treasury to be costed in the last six months?

The answer is somewhere between zero and none. I wonder why.

By the sounds of it, they've costed a fair few of their policies:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-hung-parliament/story-fn59nsif-1225968225406

and

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...emands-ken-henry/story-fn59niix-1225967919278 - complete with the Oz's mandatory half dozen digs at the Greens.

I don't know the precise number. Presumably plenty relating to clean energy sources, pretty sure they had costings done for the difference between the original and proposed mining tax, they had the cost of free tertiary education for all Aust citizens done as well. In other words, more then the zero that you presumed.

You make it sound like the Greens want more scrutiny of their policies, because that's all it will take - give them some oxygen and Greens fever will sweep the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps that's what the true believers in the rank and file think, but the leadership know that flying under the radar is one of the biggest factors in their success to this point - masking their substantial policy weaknesses and capitalising on the feel-good factor of perhaps the most valuable brand in Australian politics.

Didn't intend too sounds like that at all. I think they'll go backwards before they go forwards like they did in Tassie from the late 80's through to now if anything.

Maybe the Greens will become the Lib Dems of Australia someday, but like the Lib Dems they will have to get serious about developing real policy first. For the time being the major parties are right to ignore the Greens because it's not politically worthwhile engaging them in a national three way contest when they are only relevant in a couple of seats. It takes them off-message to the detriment of the broader campaign.

Agree with the first part, especially some of the Greens tax policies seem impractical, ideological or overly idealistic. The thing is though they can't implement those zany policies in Parliament, nor in the foreseeable future, because they'll just get slapped down. Only the much boarder policies can get pushed through eg. carbon tax, same-sex marriage, increased territory rights etc because they actually have a solid support base in the public.

However I think it's hypocritical for the major parties to ignore the Greens then later complain that they aren't scrutinised at all. You can't have it both ways when they aren't a major party.

The media definitely needs to apply more scrutiny, but unfortunately at present they either have a vendetta against them (News) or they just see their policies as laughable and not worth column inches (Fairfax). The latter may be true but from the voting figures it's clearly not as self-evident as one would presume, thus there is a need for the blowtorch to be applied.

You're right about News, but have you actually read a Fairfax paper in the past 5 years? Both The Age and to a lesser but still large extent the SMH give the Greens a free ride almost as blatantly as News gives the Coalition a free ride

The result will be that the Greens will either recede back into irrelevancy, or develop into a viable third party. Either way the Australian public will be better off than the current situation, where we have an amateurly-run outfit earning large numbers of votes and influencing policy based primarily on vague feel-good notions of environmentalism and generous social attitudes.

Depends on your political position I guess. I wouldn't call a carbon tax and the future ETS a vague feel-good notion of environmentalism at all, I'd say it would be one of the biggest and most important economic reforms the country will see and is a necessary reform to combat a serious problem, but I guess that's an argument for another thread. Considering much of the Greens support is from ex-Labor voters scorned by their constant drift rightwards on social policy and vacation of the field on climate change it seems ironic they're now in such a strong position.

Regardless, much of the Greens support is from these ex-Labor voters due to Labor's policies rather then anything particularly great about the Greens. This doesn't look like changing since Labor will be just like they were before the election as soon as they are either the Government in their own right or in Opposition.

 

[Caesar]

By the sounds of it, they've costed a fair few of their policies:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-hung-parliament/story-fn59nsif-1225968225406

and

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...emands-ken-henry/story-fn59niix-1225967919278 - complete with the Oz's mandatory half dozen digs at the Greens.

I don't know the precise number. Presumably plenty relating to clean energy sources, pretty sure they had costings done for the difference between the original and proposed mining tax, they had the cost of free tertiary education for all Aust citizens done as well. In other words, more then the zero that you presumed.

Neither of those articles say anything about Greens policies having been costed. They merely say that Treasury have been busy answering Greens queries about government policy, and that Ken Henry is worried about the workload if/when the Greens ask Treasury to cost their platform under the terms of the agreement with the ALP.

As far as I'm aware the Greens haven't had any of their policies costed as yet. They certainly haven't told anybody the details if they have, which would say even more about the level of scrutiny they're comfortable with.

However I think it's hypocritical for the major parties to ignore the Greens then later complain that they aren't scrutinised at all. You can't have it both ways when they aren't a major party.

Why? A major part of the reason we have a free and unfettered press in this country is to provide scrutiny of the political process. It's not just up to a party's political opponents to hold them accountable.

Just because the major parties don't want to go off-message to deal with the Greens doesn't mean the press has an excuse to stop doing their job.

You're right about News, but have you actually read a Fairfax paper in the past 5 years? Both The Age and to a lesser but still large extent the SMH give the Greens a free ride almost as blatantly as News gives the Coalition a free ride

Uh, that's what I said. They treat them as if they are equally irrelevant and laughable as Family First, the Christian Democrats, and other marginal parties of their ilk and ignore them.

Depends on your political position I guess. I wouldn't call a carbon tax and the future ETS a vague feel-good notion of environmentalism at all, I'd say it would be one of the biggest and most important economic reforms the country will see and is a necessary reform to combat a serious problem, but I guess that's an argument for another thread.

It's got nothing to do with political position. I believe in AGW and I want to stop global warming. Nonetheless the unilateral carbon tax is the best example of the Greens' brand of vague feelgood frippery going around. It's uncosted, unmodelled, and provides zero practical benefits to anyone.

 

[Inferno]

Neither of those articles say anything about Greens policies having been costed. They merely say that Treasury have been busy answering Greens queries about government policy, and that Ken Henry is worried about the workload if/when the Greens ask Treasury to cost their platform under the terms of the agreement with the ALP.

As far as I'm aware the Greens haven't had any of their policies costed as yet. They certainly haven't told anybody the details if they have, which would say even more about the level of scrutiny they're comfortable with.

Again, they had the cost of free tertiary education done which was $20bn or something there abouts from memory. They probably have had a whole lot more I just haven't actually followed it specifically, and something like "Treasury finds Greens proposed windfarm will cost $300m" isn't exactly newsworthy. Plus the Greens tend to be lazy with their websites until an election rolls around.

But when they report things like

He did not complain about the policies of the Labor government or the opposition but is understood to have darkly joked to colleagues that Treasury did not have a big enough computer to cost the policies of the Greens.

I'm going to presume that costing of policies have been done.

Why? A major part of the reason we have a free and unfettered press in this country is to provide scrutiny of the political process. It's not just up to a party's political opponents to hold them accountable.

Just because the major parties don't want to go off-message to deal with the Greens doesn't mean the press has an excuse to stop doing their job.

If political parties are complaining about the Greens escaping scrutiny then maybe they should do something about it themselves, rather then having a constant whinge. The media have their own agendas, including maximising profit which probably wouldn't happen if they spent more time talking about the Greens with the notable exception of solidly right wing media outlets like News and talkback radio hosts because fear campaigns = $$$.

Uh, that's what I said. They treat them as if they are equally irrelevant and laughable as Family First, the Christian Democrats, and other marginal parties of their ilk and ignore them.

Umm... when I asked you have you read The Age or SMH in the past 5 years I was being serious, but you've basically answered as a definite no here anyway. What you said above is completely ignorant. Don't believe me? Just ask Meds, he'll start a rant about how left wing and pro-Greens Fairfax is. Actually just ask anyone in Melbourne remotely right of centre and takes a basic interest in politics and current affairs.

But I seriously have nfi where you get the idea that Fairfax rates the Greens next to Family First and fringe right wing parties from.

It's got nothing to do with political position. I believe in AGW and I want to stop global warming. Nonetheless the unilateral carbon tax is the best example of the Greens' brand of vague feelgood frippery going around. It's uncosted, unmodelled, and provides zero practical benefits to anyone.

It's hardly unilateral or else it would have a snowballs chance of making it through Parliament. All they've announced is that there'll be a carbon tax come June 2012, no one ever gave off the idea that it's modelled or costed, and I don't know how you can already decided it has zero benefits when they haven't actually decided on the details of it

 

[Caesar]

Again, they had the cost of free tertiary education done which was $20bn or something there abouts from memory. They probably have had a whole lot more I just haven't actually followed it specifically, and something like "Treasury finds Greens proposed windfarm will cost $300m" isn't exactly newsworthy. Plus the Greens tend to be lazy with their websites until an election rolls around.

Links? You've only mentioned one policy (tertiary ed) and IIRC that was part of a general Senate information release rather than a specific request to Treasury by the Greens to cost their policies.

But when they report things like

I'm going to presume that costing of policies have been done.

Why? That just says Ken Henry is worried about the size of the workload if it has to be done. It certainly doesn't indicate anything has been costed as yet. Again, not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see some links.

If political parties are complaining about the Greens escaping scrutiny then maybe they should do something about it themselves, rather then having a constant whinge.

I'm sure they've considered it and come to the conclusion it's not in their interest to go off-message. I don't see why that precludes them from complaining about the media not doing their job though.

Umm... when I asked you have you read The Age or SMH in the past 5 years I was being serious, but you've basically answered as a definite no here anyway. What you said above is completely ignorant. Don't believe me? Just ask Meds, he'll start a rant about how left wing and pro-Greens Fairfax is. Actually just ask anyone in Melbourne remotely right of centre and takes a basic interest in politics and current affairs.

When is the last time a Fairfax paper scrutinised the policy platform of the Greens? Never. They report on the Greens insofar as their announcements make news but they do not apply scrutiny to them, same as the other small parties.

Whether you see that as giving them a free ride or ignoring them as not being worth the time to examine I guess is down to interpretation. Personally I think the main reason Ross Gittens doesn't write about the Greens' economic policies is because he thinks they aren't worth the column inches, not because he's a closet greenie, but that's just me.

It's hardly unilateral or else it would have a snowballs chance of making it through Parliament.

Unilateral = Australia acting alone rather than in concert with other nations.

All they've announced is that there'll be a carbon tax come June 2012, no one ever gave off the idea that it's modelled or costed,

You don't see anything wrong with announcing you're imposing a tax before you've worked out what it's going to cost and what effect it's going to have on the economy?

and I don't know how you can already decided it has zero benefits when they haven't actually decided on the details of it

Because environmentally speaking, the details don't matter. It could completely eliminate Australia's carbon emissions overnight, and China's emissions growth in the next 12 months alone will have still more than made up for the difference.

Reducing carbon emissions will only have an impact on global warming when the world's major emitters all act together. A little country like Australia acting alone isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to anyone - not diplomatically, and certainly not environmentally. It's just putting an economic impost on our population for no discernable benefit.

 

[Southerntakeover]

hahahaha ...

So even when they are in opposition, everything bad is the Libs fault?

Strawman + eye rolling emoticon =/= valid response.

Labor sold whatever soul they had left to avoid an immediate second election. They are solely responsible for the Greens current bout of poncing about like they own the place ...

The Greens wouldnt have held a lower house seat had it not been for the Liberal Party.

If the Greens are dangerous extremists, as we're being told, why did the Liberal Party provide them with the preferences which allowed them to gain a seat (and effectively the balance of power)?

 

[Inferno]

Links? You've only mentioned one policy (tertiary ed) and IIRC that was part of a general Senate information release rather than a specific request to Treasury by the Greens to cost their policies.


Why? That just says Ken Henry is worried about the size of the workload if it has to be done. It certainly doesn't indicate anything has been costed as yet. Again, not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see some links.

So you've made the claim that they haven't, and now want me to do the research for you? *sigh* right... well anyway:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ersity-education/story-fn59niix-1225972402594

A Greens proposal to reintroduce free university education for all Australian students would cost taxpayers $23 billion over four years.

The estimate was included in yesterday's release of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations post-election brief to the incoming Gillard government.


The so-called Red Book for incoming minister Chris Evans includes a detailed analysis of Greens election policies since the government relies upon the minor party for support in parliament.

​

So that's their education policies costed... is that something between "zero and none"?

I'm sure they've considered it and come to the conclusion it's not in their interest to go off-message. I don't see why that precludes them from complaining about the media not doing their job though.

But the media's job is to maximise profits, not to scrutinise every parties policies like an independent judge

When is the last time a Fairfax paper scrutinised the policy platform of the Greens? Never. They report on the Greens insofar as their announcements make news but they do not apply scrutiny to them, same as the other small parties.

Whether you see that as giving them a free ride or ignoring them as not being worth the time to examine I guess is down to interpretation. Personally I think the main reason Ross Gittens doesn't write about the Greens' economic policies is because he thinks they aren't worth the column inches, not because he's a closet greenie, but that's just me.

Look, I honestly don't know what version of The Age you get in Iceland or where ever you happen to live, but as someone who voted for the Greens (more so to drag Labor back to the left then anything) even I think The Age is pretty biased towards them from the constant over reporting to the almost total lack of being critical of them.

Unilateral = Australia acting alone rather than in concert with other nations.

You don't see anything wrong with announcing you're imposing a tax before you've worked out what it's going to cost and what effect it's going to have on the economy?

Because environmentally speaking, the details don't matter. It could completely eliminate Australia's carbon emissions overnight, and China's emissions growth in the next 12 months alone will have still more than made up for the difference.

Reducing carbon emissions will only have an impact on global warming when the world's major emitters all act together. A little country like Australia acting alone isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to anyone - not diplomatically, and certainly not environmentally. It's just putting an economic impost on our population for no discernable benefit.

While I agree to a certain extent, I don't think Labor would commit electoral suicide and implement a carbon tax that destroys the mining and coal industry. Per capita we are one of the highest emitters in the world, and this carbon tax in the short term would be lucky to even bring us to the averaged for a developed country. We're the 16th highest emitter in the world, higher then France which has 3 times our population, higher then Brazil - the 5th largest country population wise in the world and who have almost 10 times our population and go around pillaging the biggest rainforest and carbon sink in the world, we're only slightly behind Indonesia who are the 4th largest country population wise in the world and swath through much of their forests.

My problem is with that logic is that the countries in the rest of the world who emit 60% of the worlds emissions should do nothing until the two countries (China + US) who emit 40% do something, one being an authoritarian dictatorship which cares little about the rest of the world and the other being a democracy that frequently shuts down the legislative process when one party doesn't feel like playing nice.

I'm not advocating we cut our emissions overnight, but in the long term I think it's economically beneficial to make a start now despite the short term effects which I don't think will be as severe as what some suggest.

 

[Caesar]

So you've made the claim that they haven't, and now want me to do the research for you?

Wrong way around. If you're claiming they've been costed it's up to you to demonstrate it. It's nobody's responsibility to prove a negative.

*sigh* right... well anyway:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ersity-education/story-fn59niix-1225972402594


So that's their education policies costed... is that something between "zero and none"?

Did you not read the article? It was costed as part of the post-election brief to the Gillard government. The Treasury prepares that off their own bat.

Red book =/= Greens submitting their platform for costing under the partnership agreement.

But the media's job is to maximise profits, not to scrutinise every parties policies like an independent judge

There is such a thing as the Journalistic Code of Ethics you know. Remember, that thing that covers advancing the public interest, and respecting the public's right to information?

I believe there's also something in there about informing citizens, animating democracy, and scrutinising power.

Per capita we are one of the highest emitters in the world, and this carbon tax in the short term would be lucky to even bring us to the averaged for a developed country. We're the 16th highest emitter in the world, higher then France which has 3 times our population, higher then Brazil - the 5th largest country population wise in the world and who have almost 10 times our population and go around pillaging the biggest rainforest and carbon sink in the world, we're only slightly behind Indonesia who are the 4th largest country population wise in the world and swath through much of their forests.

So? Per capita doesn't mean anything when it comes to stopping climate change. Our carbon emissions are what, 1.2% of the world's total? Like I said, China's emissions grow by more than that amount every year. As a nation, anything we do independently is totally irrelevant.

My problem is with that logic is that the countries in the rest of the world who emit 60% of the worlds emissions should do nothing until the two countries (China + US) who emit 40% do something, one being an authoritarian dictatorship which cares little about the rest of the world and the other being a democracy that frequently shuts down the legislative process when one party doesn't feel like playing nice.

Well if it's that unlikely that the US and China are going to act, that's even more of a reason for us not to jump ahead and burden our economy for no reason. Because the actual problem of global emissions is not going to be solved until those two get on board. Period.

It may not 'feel right' sitting around and waiting for the serious emitters to get on board, but it's the most logical approach. Acting purely for the sake of acting is worse than pointless.

 

[medusala]

Per capita we are one of the highest emitters in the world, and this carbon tax in the short term would be lucky to even bring us to the averaged for a developed country.

so what? Per capita reductions mean nothing.

My problem is with that logic is that the countries in the rest of the world who emit 60% of the worlds emissions should do nothing until the two countries (China + US) who emit 40% do something, one being an authoritarian dictatorship which cares little about the rest of the world and the other being a democracy that frequently shuts down the legislative process when one party doesn't feel like playing nice.

Your problem appears to be with logic full stop. Australia accounts for 2% of emissions. How will a 5% reduction of that 2% make any difference to anything? It won't it is utterly pointless.

I'm not advocating we cut our emissions overnight, but in the long term I think it's economically beneficial to make a start now despite the short term effects which I don't think will be as severe as what some suggest.

Could you please explain to us how it is economically beneficial to start now.

How is taxing (for the second time recently) your most important industry, one where you have(had) a big international competitive advantage going to produce a positive economic outcome?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Prime Minister Bob Brown... I like the sound of that.

 

[Metal]

I agree with the premise but not the title of this thread. The Greens ran an election campaign with under-scrutinised policies and we're now seeing the fallout from that in what Labor is implementing.

Hopefully this is a wakeup call to everyone - media, voting public, major parties, even the Greens themselves. The Greens have reached the tipping point where proper accountability for their platform is now needed.


What does any of this have to do with the Greens dictating government policy to the point where Labor are reneging on their core election promises?

The Coalition are in opposition, they can do whatever they like as far as I'm concerned. Abbott and Bernadi have no more relevance than old men yelling at clouds, and using them as an excuse for what the Executive are doing is nothing short of deflection.

Everything. The ALP is negotiating with the Greens. So what? Everyone negotiates unless you have control of both houses and can ram through legislation like Work Choices. I want the ALP to negotiate with the Greens on issues such as a Carbon tax. What else would you expect them to do? This is a beat up by Abbott and co. Bob Brown does not even come close to being the PM but it suits the Tories' agenda to make such an assertion over and again.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I dont know why the right-wingers are complaining about labor negotiating with the greens over a carbon price.
You had your chance to have a heavy influence in that policy last year, and walked away from it.

In essence, you let down a large proportion of your constituents with the head in the sand approach.

 

[cancat]

I dont know why the right-wingers are complaining about labor negotiating with the greens over a carbon price.
You had your chance to have a heavy influence in that policy last year, and walked away from it.

In essence, you let down a large proportion of your constituents with the head in the sand approach.

The Libs policy under Abbott was, and is, not to impose a carbon tax unilaterally i.e. for Australia to not go it alone and damage its economy for a token, feel good gesture. Labor has let down its constituents by going into an election with a declared position and abandoning it, thereby allowing a party with one seat to dictate policy.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

The Libs policy under Abbott was, and is, not to impose a carbon tax unilaterally i.e. for Australia to not go it alone and damage its economy for a token, feel good gesture. Labor has let down its constituents by going into an election with a declared position and abandoning it, thereby allowing a party with one seat to dictate policy.

No, Tony Abbots policy is "GW is bullsh1t" and his first act as leader of the libs was to squash an ETS which was very beneficial to big business and his key backers.

A carbon tax will never be unilateral. There are many ways to achieve C02 targets. We've just seen China agree to 11% renewables (done via "direct action" because they do not have a free market). Europe and NZ have an ETS. The movement towards c02 targets is getting close to unilateral, with each country implementing its own scheme to acheive that.

 

[Metal]

The Libs policy under Abbott was, and is, not to impose a carbon tax unilaterally i.e. for Australia to not go it alone and damage its economy for a token, feel good gesture. Labor has let down its constituents by going into an election with a declared position and abandoning it, thereby allowing a party with one seat to dictate policy.

Australia is not going it alone. This is a line being peddled by the Liberals but is patently untrue. Some basic research will also reveal that it will not damage the economy like the Coalition fear campaign suggests. Neither is it a token gesture....it is a major change to the way we live and the way we do business. And change always involves adjustment pain. Perhaps you would be more enlightened if you actually questioned the bs coming out of the mouths of Coalition politicians. As Swan has said, it is not a tax that comes out of our pay packets, but is a tax on polluters. And all that has been done at this stage is to say we are going to put a price on carbon, nothing about the rate of tax. A lot of myth making is being propagated by the Coalition.

 

[cancat]

Rudd's policy backed by Turnbull was for Australia to unilaterally commit itself before Copenhagen. And what a fiasco that turned out to be. The situation has not changed. There is no binding international agreement that will lower carbon emissions and Labor have merely back flipped in order to stay in government.

If you believe that Australia should go it alone then do you also believe that Gillard should call a general election immediately and go to the polls with that policy?

 

[Eagle87]

Australia is not going it alone. This is a line being peddled by the Liberals but is patently untrue. Some basic research will also reveal that it will not damage the economy like the Coalition fear campaign suggests. Neither is it a token gesture....it is a major change to the way we live and the way we do business. And change always involves adjustment pain. Perhaps you would be more enlightened if you actually questioned the bs coming out of the mouths of Coalition politicians. As Swan has said, it is not a tax that comes out of our pay packets, but is a tax on polluters. And all that has been done at this stage is to say we are going to put a price on carbon, nothing about the rate of tax. A lot of myth making is being propagated by the Coalition.

You can't possibly be serious?

 

[pazza]

Where is the harm in Greens policy?

Voluntary Euthanasia? Big tick.

Better drugs policy? Yeah that'll work.

Tertiary Education and making it easier to access? Definitely.

It seems that some people in here believe in class warfare, a lack of idividual rights or prepared to look at alternatives. Therefore, they are running scared. And are arguably irrelevant.

 

[cancat]

The electorate of Australia passed judgement on Greens policy recently. They won only one seat.