Australian Politics thread [merged]

[FNM]

You referred to that earlier in this thread, WP.
Yes, Tony is just taking the fools for a ride - as evidenced in this thread 
A grade con artist - F grade leader 

[Tigeritis™©®]

Abbott made history by making Labor dump there own PM in his first term.

Did he?
I think you are re-writing history T101. This was a text book case of factional implosion by the ALP. It had nothing to do with the mad monk.

the ALP 10 headed monster rearing it's ugly head! 

[Tigeritis™©®]

I don't understand you WP. So now you don't think politicians should be able to change their minds on policy? 
I've always maintained my frustration with this carbon tax issue. Don't tell us you aren't going to do it just before the election when you had every intention of bringing it in. That's deception. That's lying to our face.
That's why IMO we should be allowed to go to an election on this carbon tax.

And you'll NEVER see me at any rally chanting "what do we want?" " a carbon tax!" "when do we want it?" "NOW!!"
ridiculous! Funniest thing I've ever seen. People chanting for a tax. 

[tiger101]

WP you have been fooled by an Q&A cut and paste snipet out of a interview where Abbott was discussing all options on how to tackle climate change. If you kept wacthing(or the article writer) you would see Chris Pyne explains and makes the Q&A look stupid for there attempt to set someone up by with taking things out of context and not playing the full interview.

Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne, who was on the Q&A panel, dismissed the video as nothing special and said he had already seen it.
"Tony Abbott wasn't actually arguing in favour of a carbon tax, he was talking about all the options that were available," he said


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-dogged-by-old-carbon-comment-20110607-1fprb.html#ixzz1OY42TZmF

[WilliamPowell]

I don't understand you WP. So now you don't think politicians should be able to change their minds on policy?  
I've always maintained my frustration with this carbon tax issue. Don't tell us you aren't going to do it just before the election when you had every intention of bringing it in. That's deception. That's lying to our face.
That's why IMO we should be allowed to go to an election on this carbon tax.

Mr Tigra you are missing my point - all pollies on all political sides change their mind, they lie, they decieve that's a fact. They all do it.

My point is is this everyone seems to think that the only pollie who's changed their stance on any issue in the last decade is the current Prime Minister. While it would appear with what I 've read is that the current Opposition Leader has never changed his mind on anything, never lied, never decieved, never back stabbed a polticial colleague while in govt or opposition.

The facts is he has but that seems to get lost in this whole debate. I just think people should acknowedge that both sides of politics show the same traits

You are critical (read furious) of Gillard changing her stance on the Carbon tax but you seem to excuse Abbott for his changes. What's the difference? I will repeat my point is both sides of politics do it and no matter how people want to perceive it; it is the reality of politics, they change there minds because they want to winand want to be in power

The debate on whether we need a carbon tax is getting lost because everyone is focusing on the personalities rather the actual issue.

WP you have been fooled by an Q&A cut and paste snipet out of a interview where Abbott was discussing all options on how to tackle climate change. If you kept wacthing(or the article writer) you would see Chris Pyne explains and makes the Q&A look stupid for there attempt to set someone up by with taking things out of context and not playing the full interview.

On the contrary tiger101 - I didn't need to watch Q&A. this was raised back in Jan or Feb. With that in mind I would suggest people get a copy of the entire interview from 2009 and read what Abbott said in full it makes fascinating reading    

[Tigeritis™©®]

Ok just for you WP and anyone else on here who may or may not know what my stance is on the carbon tax debate.
I am completly against a proposed carbon tax and or an ETS or any other stupid scheme that might jeopardise jobs and/or effect cost of living to ALL Australians.
On global warming climate change: I think the global warming climate change hysteria has got out of hand. There are alot of theory's of which science can't really explain they seem to flip flop as much as politicians do.
 What about the threat of an asteroid crashing into the earth? Shouldn't we then have an asteroid tax and we could build a great big protective dome like in the Simpsons movie.   
I'm of the opinion that this world is larger and more powerful than we give it credit for. How do we really know how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere?  Maybe there should be just that level to maintain balance. 
I don't like politicians flip flopping on policy. I especially don't like when they introduce major policy change without taking it to the people. I didn't like workchoices and I don't want a carbon tax. If the majority of Australians decide to vote a party in with that kind of agenda then so be it.

[10 FLAGS]

The current ALP are a bunch of no hopers IMHO. Even the ALP membership is deserting them. Members leaving in droves sick of policy aimed at supporting the minorities, the greenies, the yuppies, the homos and the rest that are gathering around the ALP tents.   Down to the last 30% of there support according to the Polls.

When they return to policys aimed at supporting the working class and the working/middle class Ill vote for them again, in the meantime they can get stuffed. Im a working class boy and I only support working class institutions like Richmond. The ALP is no longer a working class institution, Its just a shambolic political institution that has lost its way! Just shocking! Im disgusted  

lol = wrong emoticon

 

thats better  

[mightytiges]

I think it's hilarious that people get caught up in a scientific idea that keeps changing more times than the weather in Melbourne.

These videos I think are very interesting. But who could argue with Dr Spock?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvsAIyUAGyY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox2gmyCXjWk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFN3fGuSSlg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Didn't mamma tell you not to believe everything the papers and tv tells you  .

 

hilarious. Why don't you take your own advice? I can show you heaps of crap these scientists tell us refuting man made climate change. The facts are this why is it that the government funded experts are in agreement with the governments agenda. Show me one scientist that doesn't beleive in man made climate global warming that is funded by a government or isn't that a convenient truth?

LOL @ another conspiracy theory. Did you even bother reading the link debunking your last myth about the science community and global cooling in the 1970s? There have been scientists telling us about rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for at least the past 40-50 years. Global warming and climate change scientific articles have been around for decades and by the early 1980s it was the widely accepted view of the orthodox scientific community. So much for the laughable argument that experts are only agreeing with a current Government's agenda for funding. Another conspiracy theory .

Btw what do you define as "heaps" given the overwhelming majority of the orthodox scientific community (what is it 97% IIRC) are advocating there is AGW. There is too many individual egos in science to reach that sort of consensous over a 50+ year period unless all these scientists genuinely supported the evidence that supports AGW (and that evidence grows stronger year by year btw). You can make a name and career out of providing groundbreaking research that forces the majority to change their view (eg: Einstein) so that counters the follow the crowd claim by the conspiracy theorists. This loopy neo-con idea that the world's scientists are conspiring against us is just that - loopy. Yet another conspiracy theory.

The opposing postion against AGW (well at least the most vocal) btw comes from the usual names of Singer, Carter, Soon, McIntyre and McKitrick - most coincidently happen to be members of or contributors to conservative think tanks funded by oil companies. Hardly independent sources.

[mightytiges]

Ok just for you WP and anyone else on here who may or may not know what my stance is on the carbon tax debate.

We wouldn't have guessed lol.

I am completly against a proposed carbon tax and or an ETS or any other stupid scheme that might jeopardise jobs and/or effect cost of living to ALL Australians.

How can anyone claim it will jeopardise jobs when the policy details haven't even been release yet. It's all just hysteria from not knowing. All reform had a cost and old industries that can't keep up with the times will suffer but new technologies and industries create new jobs are well. It's called progress. What else is forgotten is to do nothing will also have consequences and jeopardise jobs in the future as we'll be left behind in the technological and economic race.

On global warming climate change: I think the global warming climate change hysteria has got out of hand. There are alot of theory's of which science can't really explain they seem to flip flop as much as politicians do.

The majority of scientists holding a consistent view for the past 40-50 years about global warming and climate change due to increased CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels is flip-flopping is it! Btw I forgot to say you can tell the difference between the CO2 that's been naturally part of the atmosphere and that that comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The ratio of carbon isotopes is 2% different between the two (fossil fuels < atmosphere). So over time especially since 1850 as we've artifically added CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels the ratio of 13C/12C has fallen to its lowest levels consistent with the rise in man-made emissions. You won't read or see that in the media . All you get is idiots crying "they are going to tax the air we exhale"   .

The hysteria nowdays is coming from those who refuse to acknowledge or don't have the mental capacity to understand the science which has been accepted for a number of years to decades now. They are having tantrums over being told something they don't like hearing. They don't want to change nor understand no matter the consequences for the future so they just bag it out of ignorance and political bias and make up myths and lies to try and dismiss it. I'm not saying climate science isn't a complex field but if anyone chooses to believe the likes of Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt who have no scientific qualifications nor knowledge over scientifically trained, qualified and experienced experts from CSIRO, NASA, etc then they are a gullible moron.

What about the threat of an asteroid crashing into the earth? Shouldn't we then have an asteroid tax and we could build a great big protective dome like in the Simpsons movie.    

Now who's getting hysterical?! If an asteroid hit the Earth we won't be around anymore to worry about the future.

I'm of the opinion that this world is larger and more powerful than we give it credit for. How do we really know how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere?  Maybe there should be just that level to maintain balance.  

And what is "that level to maintain balance"? 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% or how about 10%?

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been as high as today (modern times) in the whole of human existance on Earth (even much earlier than that ie. 400,000 years ago). The usual variation in the time scale has been between 170ppm and 300ppm up to the late 19th century. In 2010 it had reached 390ppm. So I guess all the denialists who are happy to do nothing want to try an open-ended experiment on the human race living on an Earth with CO2 levels in the atmosphere reaching 3 times historical natural levels by 2100.


http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#co2

I don't like politicians flip flopping on policy.

So you don't like Abbott either  . He flip-flops on every policy  .

I especially don't like when they introduce major policy change without taking it to the people. I didn't like workchoices and I don't want a carbon tax. If the majority of Australians decide to vote a party in with that kind of agenda then so be it.

Now this bit is fair enough opinion. The pollies on both sides won't go for it though.

[tiger101]

*How can anyone claim it will jeopardise jobs when the policy details haven't even been release yet. It's all just hysteria from not knowing. All reform had a cost and old industries that can't keep up with the times will suffer but new technologies and industries create new jobs are well.*

MT of cause it will put jobs in jeopardy. The hole point of a carbon tax is to increase costs of carbon out putting industry's such as manufacturing until they are no longer viable to to make profit. So to get around this new tax and to keep there profits they will simply move offshore. As for new technologies will come. New technologies are already out there. But the government isn't willing to go down that path. Nuclear power very clean in carbon government could subsidies the cost. But lets be honest Australia has nothing besides for minerals we are Asia's sand pit and with that unfortunately comes carbon emissions. But still our emissions are tiny compared to other country's and even if we cut all of out emissions tomorrow it won't do anything to avoid this (apparent) impending global warming crisis.

Oh yeah what happened when Unions made our manufacturing sector unprofitable due to high costs. They moved shore. Businesses don't just create new technologies if they can just move offshore for less amount of money then to invent things and keep there same if not improving there profit margins. But that's something Labor and Greens don't think because they don't understand economics.

[10 FLAGS]

Heard a New Zealand farmer today, currently paying 3000 per year for the current scheme in New Zealand when the price of carbon is like $8 or something and will be paying $30,000 a year in 2 years. New Zealands farmers are stuffed as a result. SAY NO TO THIS TYPE OF DODGY SCHEME IN AUSTRALIA!

[FNM]

Will there be the same hue and cry from electricity customers to the same level as the carbon tax after IPART has just approved an 18 per cent increase?

[mightytiges]

Heard a New Zealand farmer today, currently paying 3000 per year for the current scheme in New Zealand when the price of carbon is like $8 or something and will be paying $30,000 a year in 2 years. New Zealands farmers are stuffed as a result. SAY NO TO THIS TYPE OF DODGY SCHEME IN AUSTRALIA!

Agriculture at this stage will be excluded in the Australian scheme.

[mightytiges]

*How can anyone claim it will jeopardise jobs when the policy details haven't even been release yet. It's all just hysteria from not knowing. All reform had a cost and old industries that can't keep up with the times will suffer but new technologies and industries create new jobs are well.*

MT of cause it will put jobs in jeopardy. The hole point of a carbon tax is to increase costs of carbon out putting industry's such as manufacturing until they are no longer viable to to make profit. So to get around this new tax and to keep there profits they will simply move offshore. As for new technologies will come. New technologies are already out there. But the government isn't willing to go down that path. Nuclear power very clean in carbon government could subsidies the cost. But lets be honest Australia has nothing besides for minerals we are Asia's sand pit and with that unfortunately comes carbon emissions. But still our emissions are tiny compared to other country's and even if we cut all of out emissions tomorrow it won't do anything to avoid this (apparent) impending global warming crisis.

Oh yeah what happened when Unions made our manufacturing sector unprofitable due to high costs. They moved shore. Businesses don't just create new technologies if they can just move offshore for less amount of money then to invent things and keep there same if not improving there profit margins. But that's something Labor and Greens don't think because they don't understand economics.

Sorry tiger101, I've been meaning to get time to reply to this.

Just as an side first, making electricity from nuclear fission reactors is pretty much 'old' (as in established) technology these days even if there is and has always been too much anti-nuclear and NIMBY opposition in Australia for such reactors to be built here. New technology would be overcoming the technological obstacles of creating nuclear fusion reactors where hydrogen (isotopes) is used as the source. While at this point of time they are a long long way off (I went to a colloquium on nuclear fusion reactors about 4 years ago and the suggestion was they were at least 30 years away), IIRC when Howard suggested us going nuclear (fission) such a national scheme would take 25 years to set up and build. There's an argument it's not worth going down that path if fusion reactors can be achieved by the middle of this century. Fusion would be superior to both fission and old-fasion coal given less long-term radioactive waste and no carbon emissions as well as superior to other renewables such as solar/wind as it isn't dependable on the weather. I remember reading last year or the year the before that that the CSIRO was/is advocating Hydrogen as a future energy source for Australia. In the end the most likely scenario is a combination of a variety of energy sources creating greater competition.

Anyway within this upcoming decade we don't have to eliminate our carbon emissions entirely. All we are aiming for is a 5% reduction of 2000 levels by 2020. So it's not as though we are switching industry off. Secondly BOTH sides of politics are required to reach this reduction target. It's not as though it's a choice of a Carbon tax/ETS or nothing as Abbott is politicking. It's a choice of a Carbon tax/ETS or "direct action" whatever the latter is. Sorry I would back the efficiency of a market mechanism anyday over some bureaucrat(s) in Canberra cherry picking what industries need to make cuts to their carbon emissions and by what amount in some ad hoc fashion. Even the productivity commission released last week backs this up. It would become a nightmare for company execs trying to manage and plan their business into the future. Add to that Governments of either persuasion are hardly waste minimises when it comes to managing taxpayers money which is what Abbott plans to use for his scheme. If you're arguing there'll be an impost from a Carbon tax then there'll be an even larger impost from Abbott's policy due to its inefficiency. The taxpayers money required also has to come from somewhere and it's straight out of our hip-pocket. Even Howard before he lost the 2007 election wasn't advocating Abbott's policy and instead was going to introduce a cap and trade ETS by 2011:- http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/17/1980126.htm . Funny how current Liberal policy under Abbott is opposing that under Howard and Turnbull and it's all just for the sake of opposition for opposition sake.

As for "Unions made our manufacturing sector unprofitable due to high costs" - I'd doubt any Aussie worker be it unionised or not would accept being paid 50 cents an hour to make our old-school manufacturing labour costs competitive. We will never compete with developing nations on that front and all the more reason we need to continue to aim for a diverse economy that's not soley dependent on any one sector (we've been burnt before when commodity prices have crashed - been there and done that the hard way). If we do nothing now then in the upcoming decades we will be at risk of our trading partners imposing addition costs and barriers on us and our exports since we'll still be using energy sourced primarily from coal-power plants. It's because we are a resource-based economy that it puts us at risk with other nations moving towards reducing their carbon emissions and renewable energy.

As for job losses - I don't see those concerned about job losses in the mining sector advocating protection for other sectors currently suffering job losses such as retailers Angus & Roberton or Borders for example. Society needs changed and new technology came along (internet, ipad, etc...) and the old-school bookshop is dying. That's business. You either continually adapt to the new and everchanging landscape or get left behind and be evnetually put out of business. The whole point of the carbon tax/ETS is to make renewable energies more cost competitive. So while there will be some job losses in time in old-school industries highly dependent on coal, there'll be job gains in other energy sectors and their spin-offs into the overall economy. While there are job losses and job gains at any one time, it's net jobs over all sectors combined that are measured.

[mightytiges]

Will there be the same hue and cry from electricity customers to the same level as the carbon tax after IPART has just approved an 18 per cent increase?

That's the thing isn't it FNM. Our electricity bills have and are already going through the roof without any carbon pricing scheme and what's more when you try to use less to save money the electricity companies then just whack up the "service" charges to keep increasing their profits.