I’m not always in tune with the political zeitgeist, but my decision to run a post advocating a dignified resignation for Julia Gillard was made just ahead of the rush. Of course, the option of voluntarily stepping aside has now been foreclosed. When Gillard goes (I don’t think there’s a remaining question of “if”) it will be as a result the usual messy and unpleasant process of assembling a sufficient number of votes (not necessarily a majority) to render her position untenable.
Both because I don’t want to see any last-minute stuffups, I hope the carbon tax and mining tax legislation is passed before she goes. Certainly, whether or not she supported these measures, she did the hard yards to get them through.
On the question of her replacement, I had previously dismissed Rudd, on the basis that his abrasive personality and micro-management tendencies (not apparent in his public persona, but well-attested) would make him unacceptable to his colleagues. However, the High Court decision on asylum seekers changes all that. Rudd has more credibility on this issue than anyone else in the party. Labor has no choice but to revert to a more humane position and stress the point that the Court decision undermines Abbott as well as Gillard. It now seems highly unlikely that a policy based on long-term detention of people who have already been assessed as refugees can stand up, wherever they are held.
Stephen Smith seems like the natural choice for deputy, and it would be sensible to find a ministerial spot for Gillard, all of which would permit a reshuffle.
No one can tell for sure, but I think the return of Rudd would put the spotlight on Abbott’s total fraudulence, maybe even paving the way for the Rudd vs Turnbull election we should have had last time.
John Quiggin 
I stand by my claim. I think you’re totally mistaken about your own. Gillard said we wouldn’t have a carbon tax, “under a government I lead.” She now leads a government that is introducing a carbon tax. I deny that either the context of a minority government, or the details of the scheme changes the lie into a truth for the following reasons;
1) There’s no evidence the cross-bench forced her to introduce the tax as a condition of supporting her.
2) Even if they did, she would still be able to keep her promise by saying no, and possibly losing government.
3) When Gillard said “I rule out a carbon tax.” one has to assume she believed one to be logically possible (or then her statement would be logically vaccuous). No amount of lawyerly language can obscure the fact that if a carbon tax means anything (and people like Fran would deny that it does), it means a fixed carbon price, which is the proposed scheme. Perhaps later it will evolve into an ETS.
I was careful to acknowledge both the minority status and the lawyerly argument, but explained why I thought that didn’t alter the essential fact. That is as far from deceit on my part as one could possibly get. The only thing wrong with my argument is that it offended your tribalist sense of loyalty to the ALP.
I think you’re wrong on the analysis. I don’t call you a liar, I don’t say you are a slow learner. I do think you are being unpleasant, and I have no wish to spend more time talking to an unpleasant person. I’m signing out of this thread now. Goodbye.
Another slow-learner.
How many times has it been explained … such statements were before the election, and were in the context of a prospective ALP government.
Do I have to repeat this again?
Gillard quite rightly ruled out a carbon tax as part of seeking government . The parliament ruled it back in after the election against her expressed statements (cited above).
When a government and parliament disagree – parliament prevails, and there is no point jumping up and down criticising (or exploiting) what candidates proposed before parliament was formed.
Gillard had every right to campaign for an ALP government and to indicate precisely what would happen if the ALP won government – ie No Carbon Tax.
So live with it. Only fools (and political tricksters) pretend that this applies in the strange circumstances that then occurred after the election.
If the ALP won government there would be no Carbon Tax. That was the position before the election and after the election. The problem is that the government is not an ALP government.
Citing pre-election comments, to assist Abbott’s post election campaigns of disruption, is dishonest and deceitful.
The facts are clear. Do you even know when the election was held?
Sam, why not call it what it is , a price on carbon pollution?
Carbon dioxide pollution if you must. I believe most know what is been talking about.
talking = talked
Sorry
@John Goss
I suppose a comparable question may be:
Why do posters introduce such attacks on Gillard and ALP as:
1) “deceitful election campaign”
2) “liar”
3) “scumbag sycophantic politician”
and then get upset when they get paid back in the same coin?
[Actually I know the reason why, but others may have their own views].
I think the editor at The Australian needs to get out a bit more. Here’s the selection of headline articles from the News website;
Curtain closing on Gillard experiment
Only a miracle can save her now
Let Rudd resume rightful role
ALP says Newspoll drubbing ‘no surprise’
Abbott’s record lead over Gillard
This strikes me as going beyond balanced reporting to the point of unhealthy obsession. If I recall The Australian didn’t seem to run a story on the fact most of eastern Australia had the warmest month of August in 157 years of record keeping. That’s the kind of thing you’d think the national newspaper would report on.
oops, that post should not be in bold.
#####——-+->Chris
well that pretty much proves what sort of a person you are
my post was explicit – that ALL politicians are scumbag sycophants as many of my poems and articles make very clear
you you purposefully misread the comment to assume i was attacking ALP – or even Julia
but in fact i do not care – so sam was right – you are basically a self appointed troll and consequently your starting point is one of deceit – because you will make any argument whatsoever to win “for your side”
and you accuse others of dishonesty – sheesh – if you are what the politicians in the land are made of no wonder so many people detest them all
pop
Except that Gillard did not say an ‘ALP government I lead’. She said ‘ a government I lead’. Spinning this stuff so that the term ‘ALP’ is somehow included as an implied term of the promise and arguing that the Labor government is not a Labor government is precisely the kind of logic chopping that has got Labor to 27% of the primary vote.
@Alan
I think reasonable people will allow the implication that in an election campaign when an ALP candidate says “government”, this means the ALP government they reasonably expected and were working for.
This seems perfectly reasonable to normal folks.
The only way Gillard could have been lying is if she had intended to introduce a carbon tax after winning the election when she said that she won’t prior to the election. There is no evidence that she had that intention, and believing that she did does not correspond with the evidence (that the transitory carbon tax was only agreed to as a concession to the Greens). At worst people could claim that she broke a promise, although she didn’t make a promise, simply a statement. The real people who are lying are those who go around claiming that she lied in this case. (Of course, she may have lied in other cases but there is no evidence in this case.)
Now if you want someone who is a serial and admitted teller of porkie pies, might I suggest the person who said to only believe him when he puts it in writing. The person who goes around the country telling opposite stories to opposing camps. That person who has less heart when it comes to refugees than Ms ‘please explain’.
A carbon tax transition instead of straight into an ETS, big difference. Now if you want a difference, who have said “Work Choices is dead” and “No, we won’t be bringing back Work Choices”, and anyone want to place their bets against its reintroduction by the same crowd, if they get in, but under a new name? Freedom is being talked about in relation to workplace ‘reform’. Maybe the new policy, instead of Work Choices, will be called Freedom through Work?
I do not think Gillard was lying. Reading that kind of judgment into what politicians do is the short road to US style personality politics. I do say the promise was foolish in the extreme. A hung parliament had been discussed for months.
@rog
Unbelievable! Gobsmacking! Has there ever been a more blatant near real-time and bonheadedly absurd exercise in selective quoting? The whole post was designed to set the “carbon tax” phrase into context.
The full quote:
Your secret identity is revealed. You are Tony Abbott. I win the internetz.
The mere fact that the tribal coterie of blind faith Gillard supporters are resorting to lawyerish word twisting to “prove” that she hasn’t lied or hoodwinked the electorate is answer in itself.
Lawyer tricks work only upon lawyers.
This is politics.
Gillard has her place in history, not for her dual achievements of Most Incompetent Prime Minister ever, or Worst Government ever, but as the leader who reduced the Labor primary vote to the lowest level ever.
@Steve at the Pub
{To be ignored}
Could all commenters please keep it civil
@Steve at the Pub
This is just a new version of the rightwing populist complaint that learning, reason and insight is by definition subversive of “common sense”. Tony Abbott doesn’t need lawyerly arguments. He merely needs to play ventriloquist dummy to the Murdochracy, who are prepared to generate lies on an industrial scale for him to utter.
As the plebeian air space is fouled at every point with this outpuring of noxious gas, it matters very little that Abbott is alternatively lying, malicious and repetitively banal. He could bite the heads off babies in George Street for all the Murdochracy, would care. They’d call this a free service, or Abbott being himself and theirABC would wonder if this was ‘a good look’ (Grattan (c)) for the government.
I’m no sympathiser of Gillard’s regime, but the fact remains that the regime has performed modestly well by the standards of conservatice governments, and even better when you consider that they are a minority regime which, for most of the first year, faced a hostile senate. While they are certainly politically incompetent and even egregious (Afghanistan, asylum seekers, MRRT backdown) they’ve run an effective government. Rightwingers have no business at all whining about them that is separate from their angst at losing the apparently unloseable election of 2010.
There seem to be three key arguments agains the proposition that Gillard lied:-
a) A temporary fixed price on carbon emissions that looks and behaves like a carbon tax is not a carbon tax.
b) Her promise was based on the ALP winning government in it’s own right.
c) Even if she wanted to keep her promise the Greens meant she couldn’t.
These are pretty weak arguments.
a) pushing sh!t up hill.
b) completely ignores the context. Talk of a possible hung parliament and a minority government was well in play by the time the promise was made. Gillard’s choice of worlds “no government I lead” clearly embraced the possibility of a minority government.
c) this makes out like the Greens had all the negotiating power. The prospect of them putting Abbott in office and facing the wrath of their left leaning base is laughable. Gillard didn’t need to offer them anything beyond keeping Abbott out of the Lodge.
Gillard lied. The general public know she lied. They are pretty pissed off about it. Blaming the Murdoch press or Tony Abbott for making people cranky is blind stupidity. Gillard herself is to blame for the crappy position she is now in. She made a promise to win office and having won office she shouldn’t be reneging on that promise. Especially given the marginal nature of her government. Her and those that advise her have been shown to be inept. As has the ALP in general. They ought to review their entire recruitment strategy.
Besides all that, what she actually seeks to implement is bad policy anyway. Possibly not as bad as what the opposition have on offer but bad none the less and nothing to be proud of. Certainly not policy worthy of lieing for or trashing your party brand for. However clearly the ALP love this policy so much they a willing to flush there own heads in a toilet. Good luck with that.
Hmmmm….
Seems appropriate.
By their words ye shall know them.
“heads” not “head”. It seems you can’t even get a simple quote correct.
@TerjeP
Not as damning as being a RW libertarian who can’t distinguish between a security and a tax, interpret the history of an issue or even make sense of plain English.
Notwithstanding the matter of proving via lawyerish verbal contortions, that Julia Gillard really campaigned with a Carbon Tax [insert preferred name for it here] as part of her platform, the population does not want a carbon tax [insert preferred terminology here].
There is very little support for a carbon tax outside of those who feel they will be insulated from losing their job (i.e. academia, public servants, etc, nobody else much supports it at all).
@Steve at the Pub
{T. B. I.}
@Fran Barlow I think you miss the point Fran, by employing complex structures to convey policy (which in turn indicates that policy had not been thought through) Gillard left herself open to misinterpretation.
To tell a lie a person has to knowingly say something that is untrue. What Gillard said related to her intention at a future point in time. She could only have been telling a lie if she had intended when she said it to implement a transitionary carbon tax. It is not credible that she did have that intention at that time. And even in the unlikely case that she did, unless those who claim she lied also claim some magical power to have read her mind at the time they cannot know whether or not she did lie. (If they did have that magic power to have read her mind at that time and ‘read’ an intention to implement a transitory carbon tax, why didn’t they call her a liar then?)
So, in summary, there is no evidence that Gillard lied about not intending to implement a ‘carbon tax in a goverment she led’. End of story.
FB is in the right of it.
For myself, personally like; I couldn’t giver a rats if PM Gillard lied or not, I couldn’t really give a toss about it at all.
Ironically perhaps, I am more interested in the here and now, along with the not yet here and still coming. I’m a half way sensible thinking adult, I have personally experienced moments in my life here I have had to change direction and strategies, based on new and more valid information, that is a mature and wise thing to do. I only ask that the Fed govt just own up to that and then get on with with telling us exactly how it is going to work.
On the terminology of it all, again my understanding and belief in the whole Carbon (insert your choice here) Scheme; is simply that it needs to be implemented, and bloody quickly.
Yep I get it that the economics, politics and social impact of it is huge, so bloody what. I actually think that it is important for another reason as well, apart form all the obvious ones that is. I mean, really are we little children arguing over the demolition rights of a sandcastle, come on it is the RIGHT thing to do, for us as a society, as a country of sensible mature and thinking people.
I read someplace the the truth has an inertia of it’s own, yep sure does. The truth is that we need to face up to, and deal with a whole lot of major challenges, major tax revision/reform, improved outcomes for Indigenous people, a more humane policy and practice dealing with asylum seekers, a good hard look at combating social inequity, discussing and implementing changes to our constitution. A carbon abatement scheme that states our real national commitment and that delivers realistic targets on climate change, has got to be something that we as a country and society believe in and fully support.
@Steve at the Pub I think the basis of the current unpopularity of the ALP is that they have been busy telling people what to do and Australians just don’t like being told what to do. In that respect there is a difference in attitude between Australia and places like the UK or EU where climate change science has been more accepted.
@ Rog, the Science was more accepted in Australia, example at the 2007 election neither party would dare have suggested anything other than “we gotta do something”.
Climate science is no longer the sacred cow it once was, thus can be questioned.
However that isn’t the main issue. People losing jobs is. A pretty fair warning was at the 2010 election, when the ALP lost votes & seats galore in the mining belts. People who should have been ALP voters. And they were told how to vote, had ALP politicians flying in almost every day, & still voted overwhelmingly against Labor.
That was a warning the party did not heed. On top of that Gillard has turned out to be not even a shadow of the PM we thought she would be. Being perceived as not able to get anything right does not give the punters confidence that carbon tax will be anything but job & lifestyle losses all around.
This makes the tax/levy/whatever a very very hard sell for Labor.
Given their current standing with the electorate, I’d suggest they won’t be able to sell anything much to the Australian people.
@Steve at the Pub
Climate science can only be questioned by equal science – not commercial interests which produce excess greenhouse gases.
The job and lifestyle losses are the same as occurred when the internal combustion engine supplanted horse power, or when technology replaced typing-pools.
Taxes never cause nett job lossess except when the revenue is used to purchase large items overseas such as military equipment. But capitalists moving funds offshore do much more damage [see the exploding income deficit on current account].
QANTAS buying planes from Boeing or Airbus destroys more job opportunities than any Australian tax could.
Flooding Australia with manufactured items constructed with offshore unfair labour destroys more job opportunities than all Australian taxes combined.
Only dinosaurs would try to block Australia (and the world as a whole) developing into a carbon free, high technology, debt competent society. Abbott is one such dinosaur who places his private ambition ahead of both Australia, society and science.
@rog
Almost all policy, by definition, is complex at the point where the rubber hits the road. That reflects the fact that policy must be both internally consistent and consonant with other policies, transparent, capable of evaluation, lend itself well to potential compliance procedures and so forth. Trying to explain this complexity in simple terms will inevitably leave the field open for trolling by those who see it as subversive of their privileges, or an opening to enlarge upon them.
I agree that Gillard (and her predecessor) made a hash of explaining what they were on about. Gillard muddied the waters with her “citizens’ assembly” nonsense and her suggestion that it might not happen until after 2013, and should not have explicitly ruled out “a carbon tax” knowing how the Murdochracy would use those words. She should have stuck to the generic “price on carbon” formula.
Thus:
Fran Kelly ( The Murdochracy): Do you rule out a carbon tax if re-elected?
Gillard: My government is determined to put a market price on CO2 emissions as this is seen as the lowest cost route to lowering emissions. My goverment would strongly prefer a cap and trade scheme but as the composition of the senate is critical we will feel free to seek support for an effective scheme and would be willing to negotiate the precise scheme with the new senate on July 1 2011.
Fran Kelly ( The Murdochracy) Tony Abbott says you are planning to introduce a great big new tax on everything …
Gillard: Our tax policies are as outlined in the budget released by Mr Swan. You should note the complete absence of an everything tax.
Fran Kelly ( The Murdochracy) Tony Abbott says that householders will be paying a tax every time they open the refrigerator
Gillard: Tony Abbott utters a new tax everytime he opens his mouth, so that claim is unsurprising. The reality is that if we win, Co2 emissions will be priced explicitly and transparently and householders on middle incomes and lower will be fully compensated for any extra costs associate with the policy. Tony Abbott is, as usual, telling only the parts of the story he thinks will help him and ignoring the compensation.
Fran Kelly ( The Murdochracy)But is this really the right time to be introducing a carbon tax?
Gillard: You should ask that question of someone who proposes to introduce one. Do you know of anyone suggesting we should have one?
Fran Kelly ( The Murdochracy) But Tony Abbott …
Gillard: Perhaps Tony Abbott should be doing this interview rather than you so we could cut out the middle … err … person … I’m proposing a market-based mechanism. If you want to argue with someone proposing something else, you need to do more homework …
Simple and bullet proof … Chance would be a fine thing …
::::===:::+++++>>Chris
taking it one p at a time
“Climate science can only be questioned by equal science – not commercial interests which produce excess greenhouse gases.”
not in politics my dear fellow – if science says the world is round but the church says it’s flat then to go against the church might mean getting excommunicated – or worse
if the science say that climate change is gonna kill us all but a million angry voters say burn coal to keep us warm or we will tear down your infrastructure and burn all your rich people’s houses instead…..
“The job and lifestyle losses are the same as occurred when the internal combustion engine supplanted horse power, or when technology replaced typing-pools. ”
sorry chappie but this is so totally rubbish it’s hard to know where to begin – i suggest you leave your wasting of time lurking and spend the next few months delving very deeply into the available literature on the subject of whether or not alternative energy sources can in any way replace fossil fuels to the extent necessary to come close to supporting our current world economic structure – very many people are sure it is not possible – and we are talking scientists here
in other words it is far from clear cut – and forcing people in one direction because you think something will work might be very good in theory but the political issues and sociological issues are so overwhelmingly problematic as to suggest another approach might be more politic
“Taxes never cause nett job lossess except when the revenue is used to purchase large items overseas such as military equipment. But capitalists moving funds offshore do much more damage [see the exploding income deficit on current account].”
very sorry again but your Keynesian assertion is not at all a majority view amongst economists – far from it – and though i have no real solid knowledge of “truth” in this regard, the fact is that again you are doing what you accuse others of doing – being purposefully deceitful (called intellectual dishonesty) by way of omission.
“QANTAS buying planes from Boeing or Airbus destroys more job opportunities than any Australian tax could.”
not worth a comment
“Flooding Australia with manufactured items constructed with offshore unfair labour destroys more job opportunities than all Australian taxes combined.”
also not worth a comment
“Only dinosaurs would try to block Australia (and the world as a whole) developing into a carbon free, high technology, debt competent society.”
oh, i see, you can assert that we will go by the way of the dinosaurs because we do not believe your very narrow view – if we are indeed to go the way of the dinosaurs it is most likely because something about humans will not be able to adapt to rapidly environmental changing conditions that render most of our current world views completely invalid – and Australia waving the “we’re goodie goodies” flag will not save us. The way i see it the only reason we have a carbon debate at all is to placate the agricultural lobby because they fear being shut out of markets if we don’t – ie the looming modern equivalent of the protectionism that screwed much of the west during the great depression. Seems pretty silly to most Australians that we can on one hand be selling zillions of tons of coal while on the other inflicting wishy-washy but painful policies on the population just because politicians don’t know how to deal with the only 2 solid export earners we have left – ignoring tourism as it falls into the category of immigration.
“Abbott is one such dinosaur who places his private ambition ahead of both Australia, society and science.”
as much as i detest Abbott (slightly more than i detest all politicians) – he’s not a dinosaur so much as he is a sycophant – but get this – if Tony truly believed we are all screwed anyway (as many well educated believe) then the best thing he can do for himself and his kin is to make as much money as he can between now and when the shtf – and his best bet then is to align himself with the big money. That does not make him a dinosaur. It does however suggest to the rest of us that if a Rhodes Scholar thinks we are screwed then maybe it’s time we started to stock up on long-life food and ammunition.
when all of what we are today
is dim dim distant past
a racial memory mostly myth
known to the shaman caste
i wonder what they’ll think of us
when sitting by the fire
and hearing of the things we did
like gods but so much higher
for our sons and daughters too
pop
@rog
Of course, under Menzies, Fraser, Howard, Australians were cowed and herded under arrogant capitalist dictatorships and lost many of their rights to financial security, jobs, and to public health, transport and education.
If Abbott gets in, he will continue this tradition but, as the gap between the rich and poor is already so large, he will attack future generations by loading up the environment with greenhouse gases, the economy with debt, and society with oceans of unemployed and working poor.
Finally Australians got so fed up with Howard they vomited him out.
Now the rich media, and fellow travelers (above) are trying to hoodwink Australia into some grand mobilisation against Gillard. This is in their imagination and is a ‘campaign of no consequence’.
I’d think the majority of commenters on this blog are trying to persuade the caucus to find a leader who has some prospect of actually winning an election. Gillard ran a disastrous election campaign and has not improved her performance since the campaign. Her personal polling reflects repeated missteps in policy and rhetoric. Labor is looking at its worst result in a federal election since 1904.
“Climate science is no longer the sacred cow it once was, thus can be questioned.”
I would dispute that climate science has ever been a sacred cow. Also the inference that science cannot be questioned – it is the conclusions drawn from scienctific observations that are open to discussion (and are part of the scientific process).
I just caught this piece by IPA retainer Sinclair Davidson
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2873230.html
Most of it is, as you’d expect straight from the rightwing script — another ALP snafu … yada yada … Interestingly though, there’s this …
Hmm … I must concede — I’m sympathetic to the claim that a royalty is not a tax but a fee for the use of a good, and want to praise Mr Davidson for including this note of terminological specificity …
It reminds us all, again, that not all state revenues are, in virtue merely of being state revenues, taxes, which is a rather important point, especially when being made by someone on the right. Sure it might function “effectively as a tax” to borrow the phraseology from some place else, but of course it’s a lot more like a rent.
Nuance in language is a useful thing, even if the cognitively challenged or politically self-serving find it irksome.
@Fran Barlow
… “Perhaps Tony Abbott should be doing this interview …”
If anyone asked me I’d certainly be advocating a “carbon tax” but – good one Fran.
@Fran Barlow Somehow in the Liberal super-free-market royalties are good and taxes are bad.
@rog
That’s because taxes are imposed on property holders, whereas royalties appear as charges for its use by others. It starts from their view of property as inviolate.
Interestingly, one of the reasons that a carbon price is constructed as a tax is that businesses see the commons as a part of their property right and so the state charging for the right to use it seems like a tax. Of course this assertion of right is rarely expressed explicitly, because if it were, their fraudulent posturing would be naked and exposed.
I’ve often mused that if the state chose to auction off the commons to the highest bidder under a licence and royalty arrangement (how capitalist would that be — the RWDBs ought to love it), then the licence holder could impose a charge and then nobody could call it a tax. Of course, a cap and trade system takes a step partly in this direction by creating private property rights in the biospheric commons.
When you consider that the MRRT would compensate for royalties there seems little to separate the two – they are just costs. Interestingly after the big miners “renegotiated” the resource rent tax it was the junior miners who were hurt the most – by not achieving sufficient profit they miss out on offsetting royalties.
Two liberal state govts have cranked up royalties knowing that the Commonwealth will be paying for the larger miners portion.
My view is that the ALP should never waste a crisis. They’d have wanted to avoid going here in the polls, but now that they have got here on the back of perfectly conventional politics, they can’t make it worse by being unconventional. They need to reclaim the faith with people who’d sooner have a “real” ALP government.
They do that by standing up for the things they’ve done that are good and by avoiding like the plague anything that makes them sound like Abbott. They also start to put a political cost on those sections of business that are helping the LNP.
Right now, state governments are playing footsie with the MRRT royalty provisions. They admit that they made a mistake in the design of the MRRT and, bearing in mind the need to ensure adequate returns from the mining boom for those parts of the country that are “doing it tough” announce they are going to sit down with the Greens and work out something better than the MRRT. It’s no secret that we Greens think that the MRRT was a cave-in (pun intended) to the mining thugs. It’s also clear that much of the country is experiencing the unwelcome backwash of the strong dollar. A redesign of the scheme much more along the lines of Henry with a much higher rate for anomalous profits would be an enormous set back for these thugs but would be very popular if cast in terms of “retooling Australia for the day when the mining boom ends”. Royalty allowances would be set at what they were when the scheme was first proposed. At the same time, diesel fuel rebate for mining would be abolished. That alone is worth about $4bn pa IIRC. Good for the books and good for greenhouse gas abatement.
The funds raised would be set aside and a dividend based on the pool paid into compulsory super mainly for the least advantaged five deciles of the population, and to a lesser extent for the next two above them. Other funds would be earmarked for infrastructure, education and training, health, housing and so forth.
Abbott, who has picked up all the extra votes in polls he was going to would have little to gain and the ALP could respond with “how much revenue is Abbott planning to rip out of the pockets of Australians and hand to the rich mining executives?” Abbott planning to give away $100bn to Big Dirt would be the catchcry. “Why does he want to steal your super, your health, your education, your infrastructure? How much is the LNP accepting from the mining industry?”
Massive wedge.
Go hard after Murdoch. Have a standing commission on media — MediaWatch and SourceWatch on a large and permanent scale. Drill down and look at the network of ties between the Murdochracy and the rest of business, including the PR companies.
There’d be no government funds for dead tree advertising at all — on environmental grounds — and no funds for any online paper that was in a near monopoly position. Mostly, that is going to be Murdoch’s rags. Those that were his rivals and maintained a fairly clean sheet on journalistic conduct and were under the threshhold could get soft loans and lighter tax treatment. Monopolists would pay a surcharge based on turnover rather than profits. This money would be used to promote diversity. There would be a ban on anyone from a monopoly paper getting an executive level job in the APS for at least 2 years after they’d parted company with their monopolist.
Get out of Afghanistan. Just leave. The government announces that there will be no more days in which Australian soldiers die or are injured in Afhganistan. The US is leaving in 2014 and it being clear that our mission cannot be completed successfully by then, we are ruling a line through the scoresheet.
Pass a strong bill on gay marriage. This is an enormous wedge against the LNP. So too is the question of pre-commitment on poker machines. Use them!
Dump mandatory detention and off-shore processing. From now on, the only people to be held will be held just long enough to establish their identity and health status. After that, they get an integration manager to help them navigate services and a community in a major city to be placed into. We are going to assist them with training and integration, and give them the right to work and to study. Anyone who fails the test for asylum will be considered in terms of the other categories and then if there’s no space assisted with passage to a third country, with suitable documents, unless they are willing to return home. Only if their home country is deemed safe and they can’t be assisted with any other program will they be forcibly returned. Australia works to ensure an effective international resettlement scheme amongst all parties to the Refugee Convention is established, so that all parties are either contributing places or funds or some combination of both.
Of course they continue to roll out the NBN as fast as possible. Go hard on disability insurance.
I daresay that if that were the direction in which the ALP went, the ALP would immediately begin recovering in the polls. Millions of people would have a clear stake in the survival of the government, and the LNP would be campaigning no longer as populists but as ‘punishers and straiteners’ acting on behalf of big business. I much prefer that context.
I’m not sure that Gillard is the best person to lead this charge but frankly, I see no obvious alternative ALP figure in the lower house to carry it off. If we still lose, then at least we go down swinging and can rebuild for 2016, having shed the rightwing deadwood holding us back.
Gillard said what she said and gave a gift of ammunition to her political opponents. Oops.
Now what Gillard said is the issue and not whether a Carbon price by whatever name or a super profits/resource tax are good and appropriate policy.The focus will remain where it is with all it’s critical spin because big commercial media likes it that way. The rest seem unable to resist the urge to follow the media pack and get over excited at the scent of political blood.
With big mining now a major customer for advertising, big media’s self interested tendency to align their editorial views in line with those of the highest bidders (governments gleefully excepted) assures that Gillard’s every good decision and important success will be passed over whilst her every problem puffed up into another disaster, every bad poll an excuse to speculate about her leadership. But I suspect with big mining backing Abbott and big media become new best friends with big mining then no government can successfully introduce carbon pricing or resource super profits taxes and avoid their sustained ire.
Yeah well your a girl. I’m a right wing libertarian. Who cares? I know what I am and I’m not ashamed of it. I’m happy being called right wing and happy being called a libertarian.
As for distinguishing between taxes and other things your beef ought not be with me but with the average punter who feels duped.
dear anyone
where the hell is kevin rudd?
its (high, bloody) time.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
Obviously Gillard has handled the Thompson beat-up remarkably well.
No doubt Rudd would have exploited the situation to his own advantage.
So this augers well for a united caucus and stable coalition government for the next 2 years.
But TerjeP now needs to apologise for publishing his coy ‘assumption’ that Thompson was guilty.
Steve (Drunk) needs to send Thompson a personal apology for his politically motivated defamation.
Bill now stands condemned in his own words as “very very dim and stupid, dumb as a bag of spanners” (and this is being kind).
John Quiggin needs to realise that there is NO question of when Gillard goes and additionally, that it is totally unfair and unjust to set up a false proposition:
People have the right to tell the truth AND remain silent. Remaining silent is NOT an alternative to truth telling.
As someone posted earlier:
The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.
`,`,`,`,`~~~~~~> Chris
i say ol’ chap
would you mind finding something more useful to do?
really “People have the right to tell the truth AND remain silent. Remaining silent is NOT an alternative to truth telling”
is exactly equivalent to:
A AND B (is true)
If A then NOT B
so if your “AND” was really meant to be an “OR” your statement would be equivalent to
B – ie remain silent
and if it was indeed meant to be an “AND” then it is equivalent to
may name is Chis and i’m a nong
because have provided 2 mutually incompatible “truth”s
ie you have proved to everyone that either of the following is true:
1. the only thing you believe in is that everyone (except you) should remain silent – ie only your views have any truth/merit
or
2. you’re a nong
i wonder which one you will now claim as the one you meant
🙂
i’d choose silence for a few weeks
pop
{To Be Ignored @The Peak Oil Poet }
“Only dinosaurs would try to block Australia (and the world as a whole) developing into a carbon free, high technology, debt competent society. Abbott is one such dinosaur who places his private ambition ahead of both Australia, society and science”.
I’m not in favour of what the present government is doing in regards to the carbon tax. The simple reason is that it works against Australian comparative advantage, and thus making it completely stupid. There simply isn’t any credible school of economics that would ever advise such a strategy.
The fact the “climate tax” doesn’t actually make any difference to the climate, and thus making it laughingly stupid.
@Red
Australian reduction in carbon will not make any difference to the climate if, and only if, the rest of the world does not take similar steps.
But this applied to flurocarbons as well. An Australian ban or tax on HFC’s doesn’t actually make any difference to the ozone layer – unless the rest of the world takes similar steps. It then solves the problem.
So, in context, Australia reducing our carbon emissions is a necessary part of making a difference to commercially imposed climate change.
Anything else is “laughingly stupid” and tragic for humanity.
DDDD—-} Red
remember there are two mutually irreconcilable lobby groups to deal with
mining – which does not want carbon taxes at all in any way whatsoever
and
agriculture – which does want carbon taxes because they fear that otherwise they are likely to be shut out of markets that will implement trade barriers to “dirty” exporters
the fact is that whichever provides the most money to the government (and to parties) will get the best of the deal
the parties will play the two sides off against each other – maybe even in collusion with each other and the lobby groups – until a clear winner can be sided with
in the mean time they can play all sorts of games like the master of this sort of thing (Netanyahu) – holding back any resolution indefinitely while still being able to look like they are trying to satisfy the carbon lobbies overseas
Australia does not want to lead the way on this – because it would not force the hand of any other nations other than maybe NZ
it’s all a game – and the only losers really are the tax payer because either way – whatever way – we lose
}}}}}}—}Chris – i thought you were going to take a break and catch up on your woefully inadequate general knowledge
🙂
pop