...
The latest Morgan Poll:
In the first Australia-wide voting intention poll conducted since Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the details of the Carbon Tax the latest telephone Morgan Poll conducted over the last two nights, July 13/14, 2011 shows the L-NP 60.5% with a record winning lead over the ALP 39.5% – the worst Two-Party preferred voting result for Labor since the first Roy Morgan Gallup Poll conducted in May 1942.
The L-NP primary vote is 52.5%, nearly double the ALP 27.5%. Support for the minor parties shows the Greens 10.5% and Others/ Independents 9.5%.
Stephen Harper, estimates that if this were repeated uniformly across all electorates at a general federal election and writes to me that “Labor would be reduced to a rump of just 29 seats. ..and if things get two percent worse (62.5/37.5 2PP) Labor would be reduced to just 17 seats out of 150.”
And people are saying Tony Abbot won’t be able to remove the Carbon Tax.
James Delingpole sets that right, making the canny point that even if Abbott doesn’t control the Senate, with polling like this he won’t be afraid to pull the Double Dissolution trigger, and thus “update” the Senate representation to match the current polling.
2011-2012 Australia totally stuffed. Gillard and her gang of eco-cronies have got you by a very tender part of your anatomy and your only consolation as the carbon tax bites and your economy starts to tank is that Gillard has set herself up as the Worst Prime Minister in Australian history and will take down the Labor Party with her.
2013. Tony Abbott wins landslide victory for the Liberals. He pretends to care about carbon reductions too but this is just a political game. He knows – and everybody knows he knows – that he thinks the whole AGW theory is crap. Unfortunately, the carbon tax cannot be undone immediately. That will have to wait until….
2014. After having his repeated efforts to rescind the carbon tax blocked by the handful of Greens who – more’s the pity – essentially control the casting vote in the Senate, Abbott calls a “double dissolution.” A re-election is called and this time, Australians can properly demonstrate how properly disgusted they feel at having had God’s Own Country urinated on by bleeding heart eco-loons with plaited armpit hair and no understanding of what it means to do a day’s work.
2015 Climate Nuremberg begins (read the rest on his blog).
I have to confess the political acumen of the leading Australian politicians has me puzzled. If this deeply unpopular tax is passed into law, it’ll be the death of the ALP party. If it’s defeated, it’ll be the death of the ALP.
If it did by chance get into law, then it’s only a matter of time until it’s repealed by a change of government anyway.
Either way, the ALP and the Green party get eviscerated.
If there’s any other cunning mitigating scenarios, please let me know.
Pointman
20
Political honesty in the cold hard light of reality( scientific & otherwise ) is probably the only hope.
For better or worse, the 2 party system has for the most part served us well. I am not sure if it would be too good for the pendulum to swing too far.
I guess this is the challenge “Mr Yes We Can” has in front of him as well.
Anybody know any good rabbit recipes?
20
Has anybody validated the maths behind the graph? It does not have the characteristic hockey-stick shape, so it cannot possibly be correct.
I suspect it has been doctored in some way, in order to hide the decline.
10
It is a truism that no matter how abhorrent the tax, rescinding it is damned near impossible once legislators get a sniff of spending the revenue to buy their own re-election. So, good luck.
10
Gary Turner – If the carbon dioxide tax weren’t such a big issue, then I might be tempted to agree with you. Abbott would be eviscerated either by his own party or at the following election if he backflipped on such an important issue – the party couldn’t afford the associations with Gillard’s weaknesses, and the people wouldn’t tolerate it. Keep dreaming, though.
10
What makes this poll so amazing to me is that I know of many mainly female people who actually can’t stand Tony Abbott for whatever reason, but the would still probably vote for him now because while they cringe at Tony Abbotts personality, they can see the vandalism of australia that is happenning
10
That poll is very encouraging.
Hopefully, Labor will look outside the “Canberra bubble” and recognise they are not being well advised by their staff and Canberra press gallery.
Hopefully, Labor will dump its Carbon dioxide pricing policy and go back to the drawing board.
What we need instead are productivity enhancing reforms, not productivity destroying, wealth destroying and wealty redistribution anti-reforms.
10
The waste continues: Starts on your TV tonight
Increased to $25 million NOW
from $12 million Budget for advertising to change the graph?
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/its-war–carbon-ad-battle-hits-tv-screens-20110716-1hizt.html
And no Michael or Kate! Just REAL People?
10
Gary Turner @4
Good point. But that just emphasies why it is so important we encourage the Labor backbenchers to recognise they need to change their policy, dump their leader or whatever it takes.
Therefore, we need to work as hard as we can to convince Labor to dump the Carbon Dioxide pricing policy, and provide support and encouragement to the Coalition MPs and Senators.
10
Dave @8
More on that:
Stop the Waste:
Stop the waste …
… Carbon Tax – damage the economy for little or no benefit
Stop the waste …
… IR anti-reforms – 25 years of productivity enhancing reforms reversed
Stop the waste …
… Tax changes – mining and other new taxes cherry picked from a proposed integrated tax reform package
Stop the waste …
… NBN (Nationalised Broadband Network) – $50 billion to nationalise Australia’s broadband, establish a government owned monopoly, ban competition, and establish ministerial control over our communications and the media (remember how Egypt and Libya governments shut down communications to try to prevent popular protest)
Stop the waste …
… Renewable energy – $20 billion (or more) of direct subsidies plus mandatory targets for inefficient, uneconomic technologies. ($10 billion committed by Rudd and Gillard to May 2010 (http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_26.htm ) and new $10 billion announced by Greens Senator Christine Milne on Carbon Sunday)
Stop the waste …
… BER (building the Education Revolution) – $16 billion
Stop the waste …
… Pink Bats home insulation fiasco ($2 billion)
Stop the waste …
… Green loans
Stop the waste …
… Green cars
10
Papaya @ 5
Much as I would like to agree with you, I’m afraid Gary might be closer to the truth of the matter.
You are neglecting the “tax cut” side of the issue. In effect JuLIAR has just given Aussies the biggest tax cut in the entire history of income tax in OZ. The fact that the people won’t actually have the money as it will be replaced by higher costs for electricity etc is another matter. They WILL nonetheless see it in their pay packet at the end of the week.
Effectively Abbott will be going into the election with the following choices:
1). Drop the income tax threshold back from $19,000+ (by the time of the election) to the existing $6,000, effectively increasing everybody’s tax by a minimum of $40.00 a week. Or put alternatively, an instant $40.00+ a week drop in take-home pay. You think the lower-income battlers won’t notice?
2). Leave the threshold where it is and make up the shortfall by substantially increasing marginal income tax rates above $19,000. This simply moves the “tax whack” off the low income earners with the most to lose in (1) above, onto people earning more than $37,000 a year – that is, right into the middle of traditional Liberal voter country. What a smart move that would be.
3). Dream up some entirely new way to make up the shortfall – for instance increase the GST. I’m pulling figures out of my backside here, but at a rough guess that translates into a doubling of GST to 20%. What an election slogan that would make –
“vote for me and I promise the price of EVERYTHING goes up 10%”.
Let us also not forget that the way things are going Abbott will STILL have his own version of an expensive “climate change policy” hanging around his neck.
Until and unless Abbott and the Libs develop the kojones to go back to “climate change is crap” as their policy, neither the outcome of the next election, nor the fate of the carbon tax are by any means certain.
10
Dear Jo,
In gratitude for your blog, which provides such an excellent forum for those skeptical of the CAGW cult, I thought I would provide a bit of political satire in recognition of your 60,000th comment milestone, recognizing that humour (such that it is!) is the best weapon we have in persuading the uninitiated toward the skeptics cause.
So, in predicting what I believe will occur to our current fearless leader on or before the Ides of March, 2012, I decided I might write a play, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift or Lewis Carroll, using the similarities between Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and the current situation with figurative knives drawn in readiness for deposing Ms.Gillard from her post as PM due to her massive unpopularity.
At least Lord Monckton may get a kick out of it, if my 30 year old Latin scholarship is up to scratch. I would like to express the standard disclaimer that any similarity between any of the characters in the play, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Politicians and media personalities provide the cast, each portraying the character they would be most believable in performing. At this stage, I have just the cast list and brief description of the characters, which may well illustrate some of the central political personalities involved in these very intriguing times on the road to our Green Utopia.
“The Tragedy of Julia Caesar”
Or “A Chronicle of a Political Death Foretold”
Or “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to a Carbon Tax”
A political tragicomedy of epic proportions with a Latin twist-
by Winston (with apologies to William Shakespeare)
Dramatis Personae (Cast of Characters/Players)
▪ Julia Caesar, Emperor of the Utopia Viridus (literally “Green Utopia”) which,
in spite of it’s name, ironically has become a barren wasteland of deserted
streets, closed factories and crumbling infrastructure. The populace are
living in deprivation; hungry and cold, bereft of hope and lacking in the
basic freedoms they once took for granted. On the plus side, at least
they have superfast broadband!………………………………….………………………. Julia Gillard
▪ Calpurnius, Primus hominis (First Bloke), Significant other and ornamental
accompaniment to Caesar …………………………………………………………………. Tim Mathieson
▪ Circus Maximus, Statesman, whose most famous attribute is a constant desire
to erect statues and monuments to himself. In deference to Utopia’s greatest
gladiator, his philibusters at the Senate earned him the honorarium, “The
Bradmanium of Boredom”. Latin is not a dead language, so much as comatose,
in the hands of this redoubtable orator. His desire is a return to rule, but he
lacks popular or moral support, in spite of his beliefs to the contrary…………. Kevin Rudd
▪ Marcus Antonius, soldier of fortune and man of action. Famously, eviscerated
an impertinent scribe with a withering gaze that would have melted plastic.
However, his devotion to the Gods is an obstacle to his popular appeal ………..Tony Abbott
▪ Octavius, aka Caucus Non Sequitur, disciple of alchemist and economic magician
Ponzius, known for his ability to make gold from the “aether”. Some have been unkind
enough to suggest that he is running interference for Caesar out of monetary self
interest. Perish the thought!…………………………………………………………..…….Malcolm Turnbull
Senators
▪ Cicero, Skilful orator who reached the pinnacle of his distinguished career in his
retirement, in his dissection of his political allies as the author of his magnum
opus “Pars Exhibeo: Stolidus Sub Democratam” (aka “Sideshow: Dumbing
Down Democracy”), available for $XIX.VC online or from all good book stores
and retail outlets…………………………………………………………………… ………….Lindsay Tanner
▪ Publius, Bit player, no dialogue, walk on part only………………………………. Chris Evans
▪ Popilius Lena, Senator, whose main claim to fame is that she suffers from strange
seizures, where she becomes temporarily disorientated, believing that she
is in fact Caesar. Usually, these seizures coincide with major policy releases
by the government………………………………………………………………………………. Christine Milne
Conspirators in the demise of Julia Caesar
▪ Marcus Brutus Swannius, A man of seemingly innocuous and colourless
personality who is nevertheless the ultimate opportunist. Also, holder of
Caesar’s purse strings. Pythagorus himself marveled at his mathematical
prowess, in his ability to make a negative sum out of any two positive
numbers- a concept now known as Swannius’ constant!……………………………. Wayne Swan
▪ Cassius, A man of overarching ambition, but delusions of grandeur given
his absence of mandate and the lack of practical applicability for his
grand schemes of social transformation and “world governance”. A devotee
of Ludditus, he believes that the plebeians should all return to a stone age
existence, living hand to mouth in caves. The “lean and hungry look” indeed!
A devout worshipper of the god Sol and the Venti (Gods of the sun and the
four winds), he allows no worship of any other power within his realm………………… Bob Brown
▪ Casca, Chief conspirator in the political coup that brought down Maximus prior
to Julia’s Caesarship. Watch your backs everyone!…………..……………………………….. Bill Shorten
▪ Trebonius, A man from humble background who rose from these uninspiring
beginnings to become an anachronism once reaching his goal………………………….. Martin Ferguson
▪ Decimus Brutus, Former leader, whose similar name to his co-conspirator (Marcus
Brutus) and lack of killer instinct consigned him to the backwaters of history.. Simon Crean
▪ Metellus Cimber, Former Lyre musician, unexpectedly elevated in the ranks only to
be scapegoated, gutted and cast aside in the twinkling of an eye. Known also for
his epileptiform gyrations in his previous incarnation as a musician, a skill which
has since come in handy in his latest role as government javelin catcher!………………. Peter Garrett
▪ Cinna, Recipient of the Order of Prius, for being the only member of the government to
actually drive one!……………………………………………………………………………………. Penny Wong
Tribunes
▪ Flavius, unabashed supporter of Caesar, in spite of pretense of objectivity when
acting as an arbiter in senatorial debate, he fails to hide his true ideological beliefs
during the political discourse……………………………………………………………….. Tony Jones
▪ Marcellus, aka Sanctimonius, ditto, in spades!………………………………..………… Kerry O’Brien
Miscellaneous
▪ Artemidorus: a Sophist of Cnidos, propagandist for Caesar, notable for his
ability to create “communal possibilities through persuasive speech” ..…… Stephan Lewandowsky
▪ Three Soothsayers, readers of Entrails and holders of the “secret knowledge” of
Portents, controllers of the Cosmos -their motto being “Scienta certus est”
(“The science is settled”)……………………………………………………………………. Tim Flannery, Will Steffen, Ross Garnaut
▪ Marcus Favonius, a poet, espouser of the “Cynic” philosophy, chief thorn in the
side of Caesar and defender of skepticism…………………………….…………… Andrew Bolt
▪ Lazarus, became a much admired former leader in Utopia in the old pre-Imperial
Republic through sound economic management, but only gained popularity after
his bypass. His motto being “Filiorumin Mare” (Children Overboard)…….……. John Howard
▪ Pompey, former leader, who lived up to his name by bombastically erupting at
unexpected moments in public life. Political longevity believed to be due to his
revolutionary patented pickling process, and a diet consisting largely of blanched
nuts……………………………………….….………………………………………….. ….Bob Hawke
▪ Achilles Incognito, or “Ad nauseam” to his friends, “Ad hominem” to his adversaries.
Former leader, who is notorious for having the prickliest personality in the history of the
Republic. His arrogance, though legendary, should be tempered by Churchillius’ oft-quoted
saying- “A pig looks man straight in the eye and recognizes his equal”. Also, believed to
have been the first person to have made a silk purse out of a sow’s ear! ……….. Paul Keating
▪ The Medusa, Creature of mythology, to look into it’s eyes is to be immediately
turned to stone at the sight of it’s frightening form!……………………………… Greg Combet
10
Pointman @1
I too “confess the political acumen of the leading Australian politicians has me puzzled”.
A cunning mitigating scenario? How about Gillard et al are being lent on by some extra or ‘world’ governmental agency, the UN perchance? The UN has its own carbon trading
schemescam going, apparently handing out free carbon credits to India, while expecting countries like Australia to pay for it.10
MemoryVault @11
Is this correct. I understand that the effective taqx fre threhold is about $16,000 when you include the effect of the “low income rebate” or whatever it is called. I’ve seen charts showing that the new tax thresholds and rates make little difference to the tax payable versus taxanble in come throughout the range of taxable income up to $200,000 p.a. Therefore, I am wondering if it is such an insurmountable hurdle.
There is an enormous amount of waste that cna be avoided if a government gets in with a mandate to clean it up. We have been adding about 1000 new regulatory imposts on business per year and removing almost none, and that has been going on for decades. There is an enourmous amount of waste that can be saved and avoided.
Also see my comment #105 here http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/barking-mad-australian-economic-carbon-tax-doom/ (it was held up in moderation as I am new to posting on this site)
20
Keep in mind that this CO2 tax is just the beginning, as the stated aim is the introduction of an ETS, which flows on from this introductory Tax.
If you think this CO2 Tax is iniquitous, wait till you see what an ETS would have in store.
Forget 500 ‘big polluters’.
An ETS covers every emitter of CO2.
While the Post at the following link is analysis of the proposed (and now patently failed) U.S. Legislation from May of 2010, it is indicative of all Emissions Trading Scheme.
What An ETS Might Look Like
This is something to be very afraid of.
What you see now is just the beginning.
Tony.
10
Looks like a great example of ‘ass kicking’ citizens of OZ keep up the great work.
10
Madjak: Interesting you say that about Tony – It’s been my experience that women can’t stand Julia more than they dislike Tony.
10
memoryvault@11
Abbott claims he can fund required spending from other spending cuts. The Coalition has the score on the board for changing past deficits into surpluses.
Having heard Abbott in the recent public forum I now have no doubt that for all intents and purposes he is a skeptic. His comment that we will be using coal as our prime energy source beyond our grand children’s lifetime would be anathema to Gillard and warmist speak.
Voters aren’t fools and one could be pretty sure they take alarmist AGW with about the same dose of salt as Abbott does. Thus they see in him a kindred spirit.
10
More primary school antics.
We should all complain to the ACMA that is is false and misleading advertising.
Anyway thatll probably make that 39% poll result bottom out.
10
If you had told me ten years ago I would be voting other than Labor I would have laughed. Now I am wondering if I will ever vote Labor again in my life.
The winners though, will be the greens. They won’t lose any supporters no matter what. Where is a climate maniac to go other than the greens? So with their rusted on 15% in a double dissolution with the quotas around 8% they could win two seats in every state, to labor’s two seats, independents up to two seats (courtesy of the ex-laborites who simply can’t stomach the coalition) and the coalition the rest. The territories would almost certainly return one each coalition/labor, though there is a strong possibility that the ACT could go green/liberal.
In view of this, Labor (who surely still have someone who can count) will roll over to Abbott on the repeal of Gillards insane tax.
Our futures seem to be in the hands of independents (erratics)!
10
As to all things income tax related, let’s not forget the enormous amount of revenue being raised by the Feds this year by not touching the tax brackets. The resulting bracket creep is touching up the average income tax payer to the tune of approx $500 … more like $800 if you are in the $85k/yr bracket. I did these calcs a few posts ago. Abbott would not have to rescind the tax breaks… he could simply let bracket creep recapture the revenue over a couple of years. Simple.
So even when Labor says the average household is getting money back under the “carbon price” tax regime, let’s not forget that bracket creep is wiping that away and then some. Like the disingenuous AGW debate, it is what they don’t say that is important. Always cherry-picking and avoiding the whole truth.
Were Abbott any less prone to foot-in-mouth disease the polls would be even more extreme.
10
As for the independents… it is a tricky call. On the one hand they have had their electorates bribed to the hilt in order to buy their vtes i the Lower House, but on the flipside they have burned the voters who rely on mining/agriculture for their income. Hard to know whether they will cling to power or get tossed out. I would love to see polling for their seats.
Never underestimate the greed of the typical voter… they are easily led by a small (sometimes non-existent) tax break or bit of electorate pork-barrelling.
10
Looking at the stress etched all over Jooolya’s face on the telly (with Laurie Oakes… who is going soft as with her BTW) she is close to breaking. She has not got long left IMO.
10
An Australian Looter Party wipeout in the reps? Be calm my racing heart!
There are enough statists, rent seekers and authoritarians in the Libs/Nats to be all we need.
The ALP are just barbarians who have got inside the gates of a great city and are sacking it.
10
Dumping Gillard won’t change the coalition agreement between the ALP and the Greens
10
My advice to the ALP
Juliar is getting tired. Let someone else have a turn because it will be their last opportunity to be a prime minister for more than a decade*
* This assumes the ALP survives, of course
10
I’m surprised by these figures. Doesn’t the consensus tell us that JooLiar should be ahead by a kilomile?
/Sarc off
10
Peter Lang @ 14
The “effective tax threshold is $16,000” is one of those sleight-of-hand tricks with numbers that politicians use all the time. The Low Income Tax Offset (LITO) does indeed raise the effective threshold to $16,000 – but only for someone earning $30,000 or less. Above $30,000 the offset effect diminishes up to $67,000 where it disappears entirely.
Average taxable income for last year is estimated to be $48,000. At that figure the effective LITO is $780.00, meaning that Tony still has to slug the “average” income earner with a $25.00 a week reduction in take-home pay as per my scenario 1 in my post @ #11.
Trouble with “average” earnings is that so few people earn them. Separating taxpayers into males and females we can look at the effect of “winding back” the legislation on an “average” family, taking into account LITO. Average taxable income for males has been estimated at $80,000 for the year, and $38,000 for females.
So, to return the tax threshold back to what it was, Tony has to hit the husband with an extra $37.50 a week, and the wife an extra $15.00 – or $52.50 per week per family. And remember, assuming we go full term to the next election Mr and Mrs Joe Average will have had that extra $50.00+ a week in the family budget for over a year.
I fear they might have become somewhat attached to it by then – increased electricity bills notwithstanding.
10
In response to one of Laurie’s questions came the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a while, and showed Jooooolya’s true colours (deep red). She said we live in a democracy and that meant sometimes she had to do what was in the best ineterst of the country, even if it was unpopular… WTF? Last time I checked democracy meant “Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.”
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
I don’t think democracy means what Joooooolya (going for a record number of o’s) thinks it means…
10
Memoryvault:
Like so many others you forget the additional impact of inflation, otherwise known as “brack creep.” It’s worse than we thought…
10
In essence the Labor Party is robbing taxpayers by stealth (aforementioned brack creep) in order to pay for their largesse in the NBN and other fiascos. The Labor legacy will be deeper taxation for Government follies.
10
Llew Jones @ 18
Politicians have from the beginning of time promised “spending cuts”, and yet I know of no example of any government that actually spent LESS in any one year than it did in the previous one. Remember, as far as the proposed changes to income tax are concerned, we are talking about an amount approaching what is currently collected via the GST.
Any government can turn a deficit into a surplus simply by taxing the peasants into oblivion and then not spending the receipts on anything, which is exactly what previous Coalition governments have done.
Essentially that pretty-much sums up the difference in this country between a Labor government and a Coalition one:
Labor tax us into oblivion and borrow even more sending us into debt.
The Coalition tax us into oblivion and use it to pay off the debt.
10
Bulldust @ various
No Bulldust, I didn’t forget about bracket creep. I presented my case originally just on the challenges of trying to wind back the change to the income tax threshold.
As you have correctly pointed out in a couple of posts, bracket creep sits on top of that again.
It is indeed “worse than we thought . . . “
10
Any poll conducted around a toxic issue is generaly a poll about popularity and teh ability to sell a message – the recent poll commented on here was a ‘personality poll’ – Gillard verses anybody else – if she does not take these results personally – it proves the belief that she and her party are in a spiral leading to a self-distruct meltdown …
Abbott just has to hang around like a bad smell to pick up the pieces – or so it would seem – the Greens are licking their chops at more disgruntled Labour supporters coming their way –
Sorry folks – Australian voters inderstand real issues – when faced with either Gillard – Brown – or Abbott – the informal vote will be the winner … none have the credentials or right to hold the office of Australia’s Prime Minister …
EYE-BALL
10
Winston @ 12 Post of the week!
10
Eye-Ball @ 34
Give that person a hundred thumbs-up.
I think this short clip best summarises the state of OZ politics right now (warning, a bit of bad language):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58OBTi18bsY
10
Translated: Suck up to the ‘bosses and globalists’ at the UN and the “Street”. [note that also includes the ex PM of NZ Helen Clark, who has stated her warmist leanings in the past].
10
I think that Tony Abbott will have no trouble repealing the legislation because the Labor party will be so diminished by the drubbing that they will have received that they will be glad to get rid of the Tax that would have been so central to their utter disarray.
10
No, In my opinion, I don’t think Abbott will see this as a bad thing…. He will keep the tax cut… and balance the budget by abandoning most of these Green schemes and other budget cuts… He can use Labor’s mismanagement as the excuse for evicerating the bureaucracy…. most of it is inhabited by Socialists and other deadwood anyway.
This will stop the now limited tax money from being wasted on funding the activism of minor parties, eco fascism and special interest groups… There simply won’t be enough tax money to go round. Fiscal responsibility will be the Politics of the day.
… and it will cast the onerous task back onto Labor to try and convice Australians that taxes need to be raised….. Not a likely thing to happen for at least a generation now.
Talk about an own goal by the Labor Socialists and Eco Fascist Greens. Boy have they misread the Australian people and Tony Abbott.
…. That’s how I see things panning out, or some variation of the theme….. I also think that the development of the north and the economic stimulus because of that, rather than enhancing the welfare state, will also become the politics of the day…. a bit down the track.
10
J Hansford @ 38
Much as I hope and pray you right, I just can’t see it.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that (just for instance) closing down Hazelwood and Bayswater brown coal-fired power stations at a cost of $4 billion to “save the planet from climate change” and replacing the lost 25% of Victoria’s power generation with __________ (insert as yet non-existent, uproven, flavour-of the month “green” energy source) at a cost of somewhere over the rainbow from $20 billion, is as much Liberal policy as it is labor’s.
And there’s plenty more expensive idiocy where that lot came from – the Coalition’s very own “Climate Change” policy.
As for developing Australia’s north, regardless of which party gets elected, what we are going to end up with is some variant of Gina’s “Northern Economic Free Zone” with mining royalties and company taxes reduced to peppercorn rental status, and labour supplied courtesy of $5.00 a day Chinese workers.
http://www.andev-project.org/
The Chinese-inspired OZ mineral boom is rapidly drawing to a close, and along with it, all that is preventing us from slipping to Third World status.
It’s just unfortunate that nobody has bothered to tell the locals.
10
Now we have more celebrities rallying to the CAGW cause.
http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/blog/220
The comments, as few as they are, are quite telling of the disconnect between the privileged morally-vain academic class and the rest of us.
Scary stuff
10
Sorry – the link in my previous entry won’t connect from this blog.
Try the following link,
http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/
and click on the article entitled “A ‘carbon’ tax by any other name is necessary”.
10
Simon Crean into $11 for next leader (from $101 last week).
Betting suspended At alan Eskander’s web site.
Something is happening….
10
I suggested a couple of weeks ago (and with these polls it might be slightly more plausible )that Julia Gillard has not got to go for broke ,from a political stand point.
The one major card left “up her sleeve” is to pull the carbon tax policy and everything associated with it. By doing this she will automatically distance herself and the ALP from the Greens and she may give herself some chance of holding on. If she is replaced , as many are suggesting will happen in the near future , what can her replacement really do ?? The PM and her Govt. have really got themselves stuck in the corner on this issue. As others have noted if you have most of the media on your side and you are still sliding down in the polls what chance is there ?
10
Should be in 40 ” Julia Gillard has not got a choice but to go for broke …”
10
J.Hansford # 38
“Fiscal responsibility will be the Politics of the day. Boy have they misread the Australian people and Tony Abbott”
Absolutely have to agree.
10
This was sent to me this morning by a colleague (with PhD in environmental science)
THOUGHTS ON THE CARBON TAX PACKAGE
1. The package is based on a double breach of faith, first Gillard’s pre-election promise that “no government I lead will introduce a C tax”, then the promise of a Citizen’s Assembly to build a consensus before taking action. What trust can we have that the admittedly laudable aims of this package will be respected?
2. On the subject of trust, with this governments record of botched programs (price watch, pink batts, BER, health reform, green cars, mining tax, livestock export ban) is it reasonable to trust them with one of the biggest reforms in Australian history? Nor will trust be restored by the government spending $12 million of our money on advertising to sell their package.
3. There can be no doubt that this package is primarily a political response to a political problem. To stay in power, Gillard had to promise the Greens these “reforms”. We must then ask, can a package born of such dubious circumstances be good for Australia?
4. Notwithstanding the circumstances of conception, this package is seriously flawed on many fronts. First and foremost, it must be remembered that our standard of living, along with that of most developed countries, is utterly dependent on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels over the past century. There is currently no cheap replacement. Measures to reduce C emissions – such as wind, solar, nuclear, biomass or CCS – are very expensive. Even shifting from coal to gas requires a price of $60 a tonne or more to be economic. Large emission reductions mean substantially increased cost of living and decreased business competitiveness.
5. Australia is blessed with vast mineral resources, and there is no doubt much of our recent wealth comes from this industry. A carbon tax fundamentally changes the economics of mining and disadvantages Australia vis a vis our competitors, none of whom (e.g., Canada, Russia, Brazil, South Africa) envisage a C tax. Thus industry will gradually move to these countries, taking their jobs, profits and emissions with them, but without any reduction in global emissions.
6. The tendency to move mineral industries overseas will be exacerbated by sovereign risk. Unfortunately, this government has created serious doubts among international investors because existing investments are being devalued, first by the Super Profits mining tax and now by a C price and loss of diesel rebate. All these measures increase their costs of production relative to competitors.
7. The global economy is dangerously fragile, with the Eurozone in danger of falling apart, several European countries in credit crisis, the US drowning in debt and the shift of economic power to developing countries placing huge stresses on global finance. While this global crisis continues, it seems like madness to deliberately introduce a major shock to the Australian economy.
8. The C package pretends the costs are very low. But if this is true, there is no inducement for change. It may be that compensation payments keep the costs low initially for consumers and exposed business. But these costs, and thus inducements, rise with time. Consequently, this becomes a tax by stealth; sneak it in with low impact, then let it rise until enough time has passed that the political cost doesn’t have to be taken.
9. The package was meant to be revenue neutral, but after its release on C Sunday we find that compensation and costs are even greater than the revenue from the tax. Thus the budget will be impacted, by a not-insignificant $4 billion. The government dances around this, but the fact remains that $4 billion spent on the C tax package is $4 billion less available for schools, hospitals and so forth.
10. This is a fundamental change to the Australian economy and tax system, possibly more fundamental than the GST. Yet as noted earlier, it was not put to the electors at the last election, it has been rushed through a political process to appease fringe political interests (Greens and Independents), and once introduced will be impossible to wind back. More important, it is doubtful that it will be effective in its the objective, making a major reduction in C emissions.
11. In fact, according to the Governments own modelling, the scheme will not be very effective. Even to obtain the modest 5% reductions by 2020, we will have to buy permits internationally for 94 of the 152 million tons C reduction required.
12. The Treasury modelling anticipates a global C trading system will be in place by 2016. Given recent events (failure of Copenhagen and Cancun, Canada and US dumping ETS legislation, China and India refusing to introduce any C trading) this is a heroic assumption.
13. Even if an international C market became reality by 2016, it beggars belief that there will be an excess of “emissions reductions” to be sold. Like Australia, most countries suffer from increasing population and consumption and will have great difficulty meeting their own reduction targets let alone having any spare permits to sell.
14. Even if we stretch our credulity to allow for permits being available, is it a good idea to spend billions on buying permits? Is sending this money overseas a good idea? What is the effect on our balance of payments? What is the effect on exchange rates? Interest rates?
15. The proposed C price and its reach into the economy is more than any other country, e.g., the NZ C price is half ours, the current EU price is much lower (about $16 per tonne), and the EU has given so many free permits and exempted so many industries that it raises only $1 per citizen.
16. The package is clearly an exercise in wealth redistribution. The well-off pay through lack of compensation and adjusted tax tables while the less well-off are overcompensated. But, wealth redistribution is not a stated objective of the package, i.e., the package is fundamentally dishonest.
17. It is also dishonest when Gillard and Swan claim that the tax free threshold triples, because they neglects to mention the phase out of the Low Income Tax Offset (LITO). Taking LITO into account, the effective tax-free threshold only increases from $16,000 to $18,200, a very modest change.
18. The Government claims it is introducing a market-based mechanism because this is the least cost way of reducing emissions. In fact, this is a claim that has never been properly tested, is questionable because of the potential for rent-seeking and rorting, and is contradicted by the inventor of emissions trading systems who claims an ETS is not suitable for international C trading. It must be kept in mind that C emissions make for a very strange market. C emissions themselves are invisible, difficult to measure, and there is no buyer. What is to be traded are “emission-reductions”, which are illusory commitments relative to some imaginary baseline, a bonanza for shonky governments, traders and bankers.
19. If the Govt. truly believes in a market-based mechanism, why not scrap the 200 disparate programs already on the books? Why not wind back the market distorting RECs and mandatory renewable targets? Why invest $10 billion in selected renewable schemes?
20. Wind, solar and geothermal have been slated to receive $10 billion, yet other proven methods of reducing C emissions, e.g., biomass and CCS, receive no help from this package. This is either the government trying to pick winners or Gillard bowing to the preconceived notions of the Greens.
21. In any case, the $10 billion scheme, intended to finance the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, is a loser. The Corporation will essentially be a government bank, the lender of last resort for dodgy renewable projects that even with the existing subsidies would be seen as non-viable by normal commercial lenders.
22. If the Government was serious about C reduction, it must allow nuclear in the mix.
23. The Prime Ministers constant repetition of “C pollution” insults our intelligence because it is a transparent attempt to subliminally demonize carbon. In reality, C and CO2 are essential to life on earth.
24. Also insulting is the constant drone of “the 500 big polluters”. This demonizes big business in an attempt to shift responsibility from where it truly resides. In fact, the polluters are we, the consumers. Businesses, large or small, merely respond to our demand for goods and services.
25. As proposed the scheme is very inefficient. Over 3 years, about $24 billion will be raised with most being churned back to industry and consumers as compensation. When money is raised and spent by government, it is generally recognised that there is a 30% overhead. In other words, billions will be spent on administration. It is reasonable to ask, would such vast sums better be spent on hospitals, aged-care, roads, etc?
26. As a corollary, the big winners are the public servants and financial industry needed to regulate and administer this scheme. Do we really want a large expansion of govt. bureaucracy and the big end of town for such modest benefit?
27. As has often been pointed out, even if the 5% reduction is achieved, it will have no effect on global climate. The only justification for a small emitter like Australia to do this is to be a good global citizen. This is fair enough, but it is not a justification for leading the rest of the world, especially a world that is now back-pedalling fast. This is even more true when to do so would threaten Australia’s big competitive advantage.
28. The proposal is to introduce a C tax for 3 years, then replace it with an ETS. This is utterly wasteful. If an ETS is the right response, then we should plan to go directly there. Surely, the emissions reductions in the first three years due to a rapid-response C tax will be insignificant.
29. Business is already terribly encumbered by government regulation. It doesn’t need more from C taxes and an ETS.
30. The package has been conceived in haste, primarily by a political committee responding to the pressures of maintaining minority government as noted previously. As surely as the sun sets each day, there will be massive unintended consequences. A major reform such as this needs ultra-careful consideration and ample opportunity for review.
31. In conclusion, I fully support reducing C emissions. But let us do it at least cost and without the smoke and mirrors of this package. At this stage, we need more research into, first, the least cost method of reducing emissions, and second, reducing the cost of alternative technologies. Let us make these investments in research, while moving in concert with the rest of the world to develop the necessary consensus and regulatory frameworks. Let us not saddle the country for decades with a ill-conceived, poorly designed, expensive and probably ineffective package.
10
The amount of energy [pun intended] – in baloon blowing over this Carbon Tax – makes no sense when 20 years ago the rotary engine and cars that ran on water – all science created to fight fossil fuel consumption was purchased by Oil Companies and mothballed –
Energy sourcing is the global growth industry – as yet the only direct tax Governments get from this is in the form of a GST type collection – and some Corporate revenues from Energy produces – largely offset by State rebates etc …
Federal mandated Taxing of ‘carbon’ or emissions to try and acknowlege unproved/proven Climate change whatever your take – is about as dumb as bailing the Banks out during the GFC –
Simply – Governments want more of the energy revenue stream and whilst ‘Phony Tony’ says he will rescind the Tax – as did the ALP when the ‘GST’ came in – Governments do their sums and it is never about expenditure – it is all about revenues to keep spending on programs to get themselves re-elected –
The poll data in the above graph is so bad for the ALP – proved the RUDD hanging had nothing to do with party preferred numbers and more to do with internal personalities and RUDD shutting the likes of Arbib/Shorten and the like out of the party hierachy –
Nine’s Oakes this morning had ‘Big Red’ tongue tripping trying to avoid the direct questioning – the journalist can only push so hard before it begins to look motivated – Gillard scored no points this morning and even die-hard ALP supporters want better answers –
The knives are being sharpened for ‘Dump the PM’ – version 2 – and when you look to who stands in line – god help the Nation –
The ‘Black Swan’- already overreached as Treasurer – Combet – still a wet nursed kindy graduate – Shorten – Crean, Ferguson, hardly able to inspire real leadership – Wong – maybe, but the true picture is the vault is empty …
Then looking to the other side – Abbott – Hockey – Bishop – they’re all hacks – Turnbull – he’s smart enough and has a Statesman like quality – but a political dummy as the Gordon Grech saga proved – maybe he has learnt something – and then there is Bob Brown – well that would start a civil war seeing Tasmania annexed … imagine Hanson-Young in a mud-wrestle with Milne for the Deputy leadership – and then on to topple Bob – it would truly be hillbilly time and any creditability Australia had on a World stage – just went up in smoke …
What is the answer – I can’t find one – Katter’s new party – hardly appetising – looking to the US style Politics – Obama was the annointed one – and what a flop he’s turned out to be –
We are entering the DEAD ZONE – a period of Global Politics where Leadership is a giant void – where a dictator begs to emerge – someone with vision and insight – let it not be from evil –
The real tom foolery is that we all let this happen to ourselves – we all let political one-liners become policy slogans and voted accordingly – the substance was never there …
EYE-BALL
10
On that benchmark alone – the Generals advising Gillard are the of the same ilk as those advising Hitler and Bonaparte that they could win a war against Russia … egos were in the way then as they are now –
Self-serving interests motivates Political Leaders and their financiers/lobbyists all over this world – it is time to revolt and take back our rights to decent Leadership …
EYE-BALL
10
eyeball,
Dictatorships sometimes start benevolently but invariably always end up catastrophically. It’s half life is much shorter than a democracy and rots for similar reasons to those mentioned.
IMHO our only real hope is for people to stop being so fakkin ignorant if history and to recognise ideological spin and propoganda well enough to reject it outright. With freedom comes responsibilities…
10
Peter Lang: #47
Please thank your colleague – and excellent analysis.
10
labour supplied courtesy of $5.00 a day Chinese workers
Not always..Beijing carpark full of Audis, BMW, Chryslers, Jeeps, and others all mainly new.
10
Madjak – #50
Gandhi and Mendella – two 20th centry Leaders who inspired their Nations and the World – came from meager backgrounds to show what a Leader with unselfish motives could do for their people – heros they were –
They were not Dictators persay – but their following within their Parliament structures made them Dictators –
Obama had that same following when he emerged – the GFC stumped him and the already out of control debt spiral he inherited gave him no room to Govern – it is the same all over the world … trying to plug a debt dyke waiting to explode … nothing can hold it back and all this Government can think about is a stupid and ill-timed Carbon Tax –
All the Ledership is doing is smoking weed in the cigar room – none of them individually understand – the top shelf get so-called expert advice and the bottom shelf get told what to do –
EYE-BALL
10
Real @ 52
Yeah, I know – I have in-laws in China. They have a garage-full of Mercs AND a Harley.
However they are not the ones who will be in the Pilbara in three to five years under deals even now being negotiated.
Once Simandou and a few other projects are up and running in Africa we will be happy to sell iron ore for whatever we can get for it. And by “we” I mean the OZ govt – royalties and taxation – NOT what Rio and BHPB will make from it.
Then it’s bye-bye boom times – forever.
10
Labor who???
Just a distant memory.
10
A double dissolution will correct the Senate vote that was tainted by the lies of the PM and her deputy.
”There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”… Julia Gillard
”No it’s not possible that we’re bringing in a carbon tax, that’s a hysterically inaccurate claim”…Wayne Swan, Treasurer and Deputy.
10
Eye-Ball @ 53
Too true brother. It’s what happens (and has happened before) when all money comes into being as a debt with interest. So at any given moment there is ALWAYS more owed than exists to pay it back, and the only way for things to continue is for people (especially governments) to borrow even more.
Eventually a point is reached where the capacity to borrow is maxed out, and the system collapses, like any Ponzi scheme. Then we start all over again – AFTER a nice, big, fat transfer of real wealth (land, buildings, businesses etc), to the people running the show.
That’s where the western world is now. All that’s happening now – despite what is reported in the media – is the scramble for who gets what assets. It’s also what “privatisation” is all about. When the crunch comes it just makes it easier for the bankers to collect “their” assets.
The funniest (or saddest) part is, back in 1901 our forefathers understood this perfectly. That’s why our original Federal constitution provided for the establishment of a Commonwealth Bank.
10
Albert @ 56
And just “who” will call a double dissolution in the foreseeable future?
10
The poll certainly is heartening for everyone who wants to see the back of this tax. But we have a long way to go. Most likely it will be two years plus before another general election. In the next election the Coalition, it seems, will almost certainly win the lower house but will not gain control of the Senate, where the greens will still likely hold the balance of power. It has been suggested that we will then have to wait another three years and have another general election (in which the Coalition gains control of both houses) before a legislated “carbon tax” (sic) can be repealed.
There is a much shorter route: The Coalition wins the next election but not the Senate; the Coalition has its repeal legislation knocked back twice by the Senate; Abbott calls a double dissolution election; the Coalition wins but still doesn’t control the Senate. Here’s the thing: If after a double dissolution election the Senate still rejects the same legislation which precipitated the double dissolution election, a joint sitting of both houses can be called to consider and pass the legislation. If the Coalition has a sufficient majority in the lower house to outweigh its shortfall in the Senate then there will be enough votes in the two houses combined to pass the legisaltion. Good-bye “carbon tax” (sic).
With this scenario a legislated “carbon tax”(sic) could be repealed by mid-2013 or so.
This will make the double dissolution option look much more attractive the Coalition.
(Alternatively, Labor could do as the Coalition did with Work Choices: Acknowledge there is a mandate to repeal the “carbon tax” (sic) laws and vote to repeal them along with the Coalition. If Labor refuses to vote for a repeal we will then see the folly of the Coalition rolling over and playing dead in not opposing the repeal of Work Choices. The Coalition would then be shown to be push-over wimps and Labor would be the hard-ball players who never give an inch.)
10
Welcome to the world of marionettes.
10
Not a hint of that graph (which must frighten the socks of back bench ALP MP’s) in the media. Sigh.
But tonight’s ABC News had a piece on the advertising THEN a piece on how waratahs (the flowers) are really adaptable to climate change THEN a piece on hot weather in China. At that point I groaned and turned it off. The propaganda is getting thick enough to cut with axes.
Do they really think they will convince voter, Australian voters, that this is a good thing? I think they have no idea, no tiny brained insect like IDEA. They’re nuts!
10
as soon as i saw this headline, i just KNEW it was about “climate change” aka CAGW and would provide a good laugh:
16 July: UK Independent: Scientists ask for escort in Indian Ocean due to pirates
By Roger Maynard in Sydney
Scientists are seeking the help of the Australian and US navies to repel Somali pirates who are threatening one of the world’s key climate monitoring programmes…
The instruments, which record ocean heat and salinity patterns, are programmed to submerge and eventually resurface to upload their data to satellites.
But with piracy in the western Indian Ocean making it too dangerous for commercial or research vessels to deploy the robotic devices, Australia’s government research department, the CSIRO, hope naval forces will help them out.
The increase in piracy had serious implications for their understanding of a region which had a major influence in Australian and south Asian weather and climate, said Dr Ann Thresher of the CSIRO. “We can’t send anybody in that area, research voyages have been cancelled and I know there’s a report of at least one ship that hired an armed escort – that’s pretty extreme when you’re talking about climate change.”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/scientists-ask-for-escort-in-indian-ocean-due-to-pirates-2314582.html
10
The EYE-BALL Opinion: Riiiight. Water powered cars and rotary engines bought up by the oil companies. What’s next, “chemtrails”? Ever heard of “conservation of energy”.
It is really a pity that the South African government of the time didn’t have the gumption to hang the terrorist “one white man, one bullet” Mandela. Ghandi would have lasted 5 minutes against the Third Reich. Harry Turtledove did a short story about that.
Sorry Jo, but this place is starting to be crazy.
10
Pat @ 62
To prove AGW correct..couldnt resist it..
10
Pat @ 62
It all goes to show how cloistered, selfindulgent and irrelevant these scientists have become, in terms of addressing real world problems.
If only they could blame AFW on Somali Pirates …
10
Watch gillard get told off by an average Australian !
http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swfbin/watch_as3-vflYi8Mkr.swf
10
Anthony Green reckons it will be 2015 at the earliest for a double dissolution, should ALP run this term of govt and Abbott win the next scheduled election: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/06/what-chance-a-double-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html
10
pointmand @ 1
Do you still not believe in stupidity as an explanation for human behaviour?
10
MattB@66
The operative word is “should”.
10
For what it’s worth, here is my opinion.
Labor WILL change leadership before the tax is legistlated.
The new leader will be an old trusted one, (so no Combet or Shorten). I think the betting plunge has it right, Simon Crean would fit their needs well. He is well credentialled to get SOME of the blue collar vote back.
Crean will defer the Carbon Tax legistlation until after the election, stating that the people had a right to vote on it. This will have the secondary effect of picking a well overdue fight with Brown and The Greens, hence distancing Labor from the Greens.
The indies, who are only interested in staying in power until the next election, will be guaranteed their seats until then by a promise of no double dissolution.
Crean will wind back some spending, especially on green initiatives. He will also mend ways with the miners whilst keeping the resources tax revenue stream.
The above will have the effect of taking Abbotts agenda (ammunition) away from him, giving Labor a year and a half to settle it’s core vote and allow Abbott and the idiots surrounding him (Turnbull Hockey) plenty of time to destablise themselves.
This should get Labor back to somewhere around 47% of 2 party preferred just before the election campaign, hence a semi-reasonable fighting chance.
Other than the above, Labor has a snowflakes chance in a Bob Brown warming world.
10
memoryvault:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Comment 11
Juliar hasn’t really increased the tax threshold at all. The Low Income Offset already applied to those earning less than $16k. Pensioners also get tax concessions giving them a tax threshold over $20,000.
No one gets an extra $40/week in hand.
10
This is yet ANOTHER problem that Labor is creating for Australians.
Coal Seam Gas mining and the utter destruction of the environmnet and people’s water supply’s and properties!
Have a read of this and be very ANGRY !
http://lockthegate.org.au/
10
Jo can we give more than one vote to a post, re post 3.
10
“There’s an interesting proposal being made at Anthony Watt’s site WUWT to fight the upcoming Al Gore Climate Reality Event scheduled for Sept. 14th 2011.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/the-al-gore-climate-reality-event-a-call-to-arms/
Pointman
10
Some good reads……
Tax Rates To Go Up Even More Under Carbon Tax !!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/tax-rates-to-go-up-even-more-under-carbon-tax.html
GILLARD $1.5 BILLION DOLLAR CARBON DIOXIDE TAX BRIBE !!!!!!!!!!
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/15bn-in-carbon-tax-bribe.html
Gillard claims her carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax isn’t a tax…. WHAT A LIER !!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_claims_her_tax_isnt/
Liberals: Julia Gillard’s unnecessary and costly $9 billion tax will hit families
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/liberals-julia-gillards-unnecessary-and-costly-9-billion-tax-will-hit-families-liberal-party-of-australia.html
10
NEW Spin from ABC:
Has anyone heard this new piece of partial reporting, trying desperately to give the impression of ‘balance’ from the ABC, titled Lord Monckton’s Roadshow
It appears to be a montage of sound clips from Lord Monckton’s, present tour, rather subtly cherry picked to accentuate the trivial, distracting & irrelevant.
Interspersesed with comment from the would be guardians of the scientific establishment:-
‘Historian of Science’ ! Prof.Naomi Oreske !!!
When Jo calls for public information & debate on the policy implications of the science, partial journalist tries to spin it, with the help of her authority on science, as suggesting science should be done by public consensus.
This piece has some of the hallmarks of that hatchett piece done on Lord Monckton’s tour last year by the BBC, presenting with the illusion of balance, but being a thinly disguised attempt at painting him and his followers as rather gifted & rather skillfull, but still loonies nonetheless.
Well done ABC, the new masters of partiality.
10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dTQc02wesU&feature=youtube_gdata
Juliar struts her stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYTuZ6890TQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Or sing along to a new Australian national anthem
10
Crakar @ #72
Mate, do you not think that might devalue the individual votes somewhat ?
I can see why Get Up might do it.
They give you only 10 votes to play with, so to differentiate your support for one ‘Issue’ over another.
One man one vote seems , seems much more representative of the strength of popular support though.
I might go as far as to say that anything other than one man one vote is tinkering with the mechanisms of democracy.
10
The longer I listen to this attempt at deconstruction called : Lord Monckton’s Roadshow
the more the thought seems to occur : Is this what (most of) the AUD 12 million is being spent on ?
10
@incoherent rambler.
“Do you still not believe in stupidity as an explanation for human behaviour?” – a strong possibility LOL.
I can only think it’s the triumph of eternal optimism over persistent stupidity.
Pointman
10
hey Bulldust, you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on this bracket creep issue, in that it appears you are suggesting that bracket creep isn’t always conveniently ignored by whoever is in power. It is hardly something Julia has dreamed up in the last week or so.
10
BH in 69,
So lets get this straight you think Crean will knife Gillard and the first thing he will say with blood still dripping from his hands is Labor will defer carbon taxation until the next election?
Just like Yogi Berra once said “its like Deja Vu all over again”.
Seriously i agree in your summation that the night of the long knives is drawing near but this will kill Labor, if they change leader again their primary vote will drop to the low 20’s, if they back flip on CO2 taxes again their primary vote will drop to the low to mid teens. Not mention what will the Greens do? Apart from squeal like a pig i mean.
Sorry Labor are stuck with Gillard and they are stuck with this hidious tax, unless………….Crean knifes Gillard, claims Labor lost its way again declares all this CO2 crap is exactly that crap, calls the Greens socialists in sheeps clothing and denounces them as a party and then calls another election. They might not win it but at least they will gain some much needed respect and credibility.
10
Joe V in 77,
At first i was offended that you would associate me with a dictatorial organisation like Getup i then thought i would give you the benefit of the doubt. First let me say i agree the one person one vote system is the best approach, i would also like to remind you the “thumbs” system here simply allows you to express your opinions on the post and in now way can be used to “vote” for the post.
There are many posts here that warrant a thumbs up, even my posts have been given a few from time to time. Sometimes a post comes along that is so apt to the situation that i believe a simple thumbs up falls short. Post 3 is a very good demonstration of this situation, i gave it a thumbs up but one thumbs up hardly expresses the posts worth.
10
Crakar24 @83
Firstly let me offer my unreserved apologies for giving any impression, however mistaken, of you being associated, with Get Up in any way.
As such a valued contributor here I could never imagine such a thing.
I too share your frustration, when seeing a fantastic post, that merits more than just a single thumbs up, and want to acknowledge it in some other way.
It was unfortunate that the last place I’d noticed an up to 3 vote scheme being used was on the site of that odious outfit, and as you rightly observe and as I thought I had, that is for a different purpose.
That made me pause and reconsider my initial desire though, to have multiple thumbs up, and on reflection I guess this , Jo’s site has it about right.
When I see a fantastic observation I’m sometimes tempted to draw attention to it on other bloggs, giving a wider audience the benefit of it.
I hope you can forgive my I’ll considered & intemperate remark.
10
Without any tax or fangled green schemes the dummies running Australia could reduce CO2 emissions by replacing aging coal fired generators with new ones. (talk to TonyfromOz). Wallerawang NSW was built in ‘57 and regularly dumps fine ash over near-by Lithgow and often has one of it’s 500MW generators shut down for maintenance. A 2011 design would use at least 20% less coal than the current 54 year old unit and dump less ash and heavy metals over its surroundings.
There are at least six contenders in Australia but the Govt is not genuine in its desire to reduce coal consumption (& therefore CO2)
10
Madjack @ 6
You’re right – Abbott is not a PR person’s dream, but he’s honest and he’s got brains and guts. Just over 12 months ago, when it was political suicide to be a sceptic, he had the guts to ask the questions. This is the sort of person that deserves the term “leaders”.
Australians are sick of spin and image – personally, I want substance!
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
I think that says it all and pretty succinctly!
10
Mike Borgelt bags
which cannot work for obvious reasons but diesels burn inefficiently at the best of times so I add a small amount of H and O derived from electrolysis of very dilute NaOH solution. The US Dept of Transport says that bigger engines see better results with some running 25% more miles on a tank of diesel. Essentially, the flame front spreads faster and there is more complete combustion so, less carbon monoxide and soot in the exhaust gases.
My crude unit has less than $300 of parts but I imagine I could devise an EFI add-on computer with various sensors (like the diesel/LPG conversions) which would give me significant optimisation of the combustion process.
Again, big cost savings in fossil fuel (and CO2 emission, if that hobgoblin tickles your fancy) but not an issue which would interest Jooliar and the creatures she is forced to operate with.
10
Microw @ 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYTuZ6890TQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Nailed it!
It begs the question why are “amateurs” so easily mining the satire from global warming that the “professionals” walk past every day???
Note to Clarke and Dawe. The essential element of satire is truth.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
EYE-BALL @53
The debt inherited by Obama was trivial compared with what he ran up on his watch. He has plenty of room to govern, by the way. But he refuses to do so. He just wants to dictate. 😉
From my perspective his following was after a free lunch. I wonder how that’s working out for them.
But all that aside — you implicitly ask where are the leaders worthy to be followed? It’s not my place to comment on Australian leadership except to note that you don’t seem to think you have them. It’s, as you say, the same all over the world. I see none here either.
The lack of vision is astonishing. Do Australian political parties send out polls to donors asking what they should stand for? I’ve had dozens of them; all asking me what they should stand for. And I’m saying you better be telling me what you stand for!
Their only vision is to get reelected.
10
J Knowles at comment 85, and other readers,
this is already happening in China as they close older technology coal fired plants and are constructing newer technology plants to replace them, smaller plants producing more power and burning less coal.
Those new Chinese plants are very difficult to track down for actual proof, and trust me, I’ve tried numerous times to track down data.
It’s taken me a while to find actual hard copy on the data, as my just anecdotally quoting it is not really ‘evidence’.
However, there’s currently a proposal to construct an extra 2000MW of generating capacity at the existing Mt Piper Power Plant.
There are a number of ways of doing this, all of them canvassed in the proposal at this link, and see Volume 1 Chapter 3: (pdf document)
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3325
One proposal is to instal two 1000MW generators, and working back from that smaller generator which produces more power than anything currently here in Oz, there’s a smaller more efficient multi stage turbine, a better boiler, an ultra supercritical furnace, better injection, better crusher and feed.
This new 2000MW installation will burn 5 million tons of coal a year.
That is the key thing I wanted to see in actual hard copy.
Existing large scale coal fired plants burn 6.5 million tons of coal.
Just how radical is this next bit.
If you can see the thing that stands out like the proverbial in that, using the average multiplier of 2.86 tons of CO2 for each ton of coal burned, right there is a reduction in emissions of CO2 of 24%
The same is proposed for Bayswater.
So then, by replacing every large scale coal fired plant in Oz with new technology coal fired plants, there will be a reduction in CO2 emissions of that 24%.
You need to realise that existing plants have a contract to run for anything up to 50 years, so that replacement can be done over time.
However, here’s the killer in all of this.
They say something like this could cost around $1 Billion per plant.
See.
At that price it’s totally out of the question.
Er, wait a minute.
That whizz bang new solar plant at Chinchilla is proposed to cost $1.2 Billion.
It will deliver 550GWH of power per year at the rate of six hours per day, and have a life span of 25 years.
For this new proposal for Mt Piper and Bayswater, each plant will deliver 16,200GWH 24/7/365 and have a life span of 50 to 75 years.
So, for slightly less money you will get, and wait for this, 30 times as much power on a full time basis, and secure a base load supply for the future.
Notice I haven’t mentioned CCS, that futile dream of people who have no concept of the engineering involved with that.
However, the real big win win out of all this, as if that wasn’t enough, is that reductions in emissions of 24%, well beyond any perceived target of even the Greens in their wildest of dreams.
And who would have thought coal fired power could actually PROVIDE an answer.
Again I apologise for taking up so much space here with this comment.
Tony.
10
Who is Juliar working for ?
as it wouldn’t appear to be the Australian people , who are paying her.
10
Speedy @ 86
I agree completely. Personally I think abbot is a good leader, and lie many I cautiously view him as being honest. My comments were merely an observation from where I sit.
10
MattB @ 81:
It wasn’t an issue while the brackets were being pushed back in the last 3 years. Remeber the wreckless Howard and Rudd election bids on tax cuts amounting to $30 billion plus? Yes, that averted bracket creep. Labor has remained silent on the fact that they intend to let it fix their spending deficit. Taxation by stealth.
I never mentioned Julia invented it, nor even suggested it. Your comprehension is lacking.
10
Rereke Whakaaro @51
Thank you for the comment on my post #47. Unfortunately I cannot pass on your comment. My friend who wrote it would be aghast to find I had posted it on a web site. His covering email to me said:
He is a real scientist and is not at all impressed with the general media. I am going to try to encourage him to allow it to be published. I don’t hold out much hope.
10
memoryvault @48
Thank you for your reply #28 to my comment #14
10
crakar24: #82
July 17th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Thnx for your response crakar.
A few public perceptions I’d like you to consider.
Gillard ‘owns’ the Rudd back-stabbing
Gillard ‘owns’ the deal with the Greens
Gillard ‘owns’ the Carbon Tax, especially the Lie and back-flip
Gillard has lost some core Labor voters
Crean has made very little public statements about the above issues, at least none that the general public can remember to tie him with Gillard
This whole Labor debacle is seen as a Gillard debacle.
Some possible positives from my suggestion/projection (dontcha love that word?)
Core labor voters may return due to the hate Gillard factor
Core Labor voters may return due to the hate Carbon Tax factor
Core Labor voters may return due to the hate Greens Factor
Core Labor voters may return due to the hate Abbott factor
Female voters may return due to the hate Abbott factor
Diffusion of the Carbon Tax/Green marriage/Indie marriage situations will take much of Abbotts ammunition away, forcing him to start building ACTUAL POLICIES (which he doesn’t have too many of) prior to the next election. That’s plenty of time to trip-up (especially with turnbull and Hockey in the wings) which will gain Labor a couple of more percentage points.
Many leftard MSM journos will breath a sigh of relief as they’ll once again be free to attack Abbott which is their forte.
ETC ETC
And most importantly….IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE ANY WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.
Politics is the art of the possible. Labor knows nothing will save them at the next election (Well may we say God save the Queen, because noothing will save Julia Gillard)
The best worst option will be to save enough sitting members so that they resemble a mainstream party.
Gillards reason in back-stabbing Rudd was to save the party and government. Creans reason will be to do the publics bidding. Much more acceptable and spinnable methinks.
Regards
10
Really, do some of the bleating contributors here think that scientific facts and the rules governing the forces of nature are determined by a popular vote of the Australian public?
What a load of crap.
It’s what happens in the world in the end that matters.
Just see how Australia has become a nation with an epidemic of obese and ignorant nongs whose next generation is likely to suffer more and die earlier (overall) than previous generations.
As more jingoistic and pompous self-aggrandisement from some has grown.
10
J Knowles:
Diesel engines are in fact more efficient than petrol engines but I agree that more complete combustion is a good idea. I have to wonder why, if it is that simple, that your idea hasn’t been taken up by the trucking industry or the manufacturers of diesel engines for trucks. I think it has been around for quite a while.
I have direct experience of more complete combustion being a good idea. I have a 320 cu inch 4 cylinder Lycoming engine in my aircraft. It used to run magneto ignition as per normal aircraft standards. Two magnetos and two spark plugs per cylinder. When running on one ignition only the rpm drops by at least 100 rpm at 1700rpm(max is 2700rpm). The large pots don’t help. Now it runs two electronic ignitions with such modern inventions as spark advance at high rpm and low manifold pressure (more time for complete combustion to occur)and 40,000 volt sparks instead of 8 or 9000 volts. The resulting fuel consumption has gone down from 32 liters per hour on cruise to under 28. The exhaust gas temperature has dropped also as there are no still burning gases in the exhaust.
10
Baa Humbug @ 97
Agree with you BH. Labor’s only option is “go for broke”. Part of that has to be distancing themselves as much as possible from the Greens.
Brown / Milne are not going to go anywhere which would damage the ALP.
10
Bulldust: I guess one would have to wonder why you’ve not mentioned bracket creep before. Has the Carbon tax actually increased issues around bracket creep?
“let’s not forget the enormous amount of revenue being raised by the Feds this year by not touching the tax brackets.”
“let’s not forget that bracket creep is wiping that away and then some. Like the disingenuous AGW debate, it is what they don’t say that is important. Always cherry-picking and avoiding the whole truth.”
“Secondly I suggest you should read up on another basic economic concept called “bracket creep.” Note how the tax brackets did not budge from 2010-11 to 2011-12. My homework assignment for you is to calculate how much the average income earner lost to the Government between those two years simply due to bracket creep. Assume wage increases tracked against an inflation of 2.5% (chosen as the midpoint of the RBA target range).
Hint: We will lose hundreds of dollars each. And those who think they are getting a tax cut next year haven’t factored in bracket creep as well as the CPI increase from the “carbon price” we have to have…”
10
Clancy #98 –
Well that’s an opening bid – who’s got the next call …
10
If you think the poll results are bad for Labour in Aussie then take a look at NZ. Labour have now dipped under 30% and that is when they are in opposition (with someone else to blame for everything) in a time when we are barely out of recession and when we are beset by natural disasters like the Christchurch Earthquakes.
10
To Jo V,
No worries mate
Cheers
10
Baa Humbug in 97,
I understand what you are saying and indeed you may be right, in my previous post i tried to give an alternative scenario which would run like this:
KRudd failed to introduce an unpopular ETS and abandoned it, therefore he was seen as a useless leader and the people could not wait to kick him out of office.
Gillard knifes KRudd and promises among other things the carbon tax is dead and buried, the people are incensed that they did not have the opportunity to get rid of KRudd themselves.
Gillard ties with what most claimed was the unelectable Abbott, then re introduces an ETS. The people are once again incensed and cannot wait to kick her out at the next election.
Now onto speculation
Labor do not want a federal election right now as they will certainly lose in a landslide, but if crean were to step in the following scenarios may happen:
A, Crean knifes Gillard and promises among other things there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead, this will shatter the fragile minority government, sending Labor into disarray. They will be unable to govern and despite family ties the GG will have to step in and dissolve parliament.
Labour lose in a landslide.
B, Crean knifes Gillard keeps the tax and all the green extortion pollicies in place, people ask why did you knife Gillard and crean says i cant breach cabinet secrecy etc. Labor are seen as the joke they really are and they plunge even further into the electoral abyss.
C, Crean lunges with the steak knife at Gillard but misses, therefore nothing changes and Labor continue to sink into the electoral abyss.
As you can see Baa there is no out here for Labor, they can only do the same stupid stuff they have been doing and that is push ahead with the tax and hope they finally stop stuffing everything else up (immigration, cattle export etc). Of course this wont happen as everything Gillard touches turns to shit.
10
I agree with you Clancy. Implementation of The Greens’ policies will certainly lead to lower life expectancy.
I disagree about the obesity epidemic. Exercising in the form of running and cycling is at its highest levels since the halcyon days of the 1980s.
10
The problem is that there is a “none democratic” movement behind her.
Like UNEP, WWF and Greenpeace, and other leftist organizations etc etc.
You have to get rid of Labour and stop supporting/funding these leftist organisations/think tank’s.
10
Eye Ball I love your posts but have to point out, that Ghandi proved nothing with his political stance against the British Raj. He never held political office. He was a well meaning activist and got them to repeal the salt taxes. But – the partition of India under the Raj brought nothing but political instability that still persists between Pakistan and India. The cast system that Ghandi was trying to remove still persists. Mandela was in a different situation and became President eventually. But there is still discontent in RSA particularly in the Free State that still holds on to its Boar mentality. And the black Africans still have political problems with the Zulu against the other black political parties. Rhodesia well what a dreadful state of affairs.
10
A double dissolution as Bob Brown nose has suggested if the
Opposition win the next election and repeal any carbon tax
then the whole senate goes with the House of Reps.
I can’t see him doing this? As far as the Governor General
stepping in, she can under ‘special powers’ like during
the Whitlam and Kerr problems when a double dissolution was
called because the Senate would not approve supply. The writing was on the wall for the ALP like it was then.
Tony Windsor is overseas right now and I hope he is doing what he should have been doing years ago, and investigating what the EU carbon trading has resulted in nil but hardship. He reckons his electorate New England is
approving carbon taxes, I would like to see that in black and white. An ABC phone in out of 177 – 176 were against and one for. Hardly representative of the 40 k voters.
And we don’t know if they were all in his electorate.
10
Personally, I think you got Aussies mixed up with the yanks.
Aussies in the regional areas where there is a huge agrarian
population or bi products of. They are quite trim and fit, and as you know Aussies place a lot on sporting activities.
Yes there is obesity here particularly amongst the new arrivals faced with a totally different diet and natural environment. And being multicultural some cultures prefer people with a bit of fat rather than a skinny model. Shows they are more content and prosperous. Believe it or not the colder regions like where I live, people do eat more carbohydrates and tend to stay in doors when it is icy cold. Snowing here at this time and without sufficient heating that I can’t afford, I lose weight in winter.
Don’t generalize. It’s one of those isms.
10
Bush Bunny #108
Yes – history records all the information as you point out – my initial point was a reflection on how the locals felt inspired and how they saw leadership – the World looked on and also became inspired – Global Leadership came from self sacrifice in both instances ….
Where can you find that anywhere today …
10
Jooolya now makes the proverbial ham sandwich at the bar mitzvah look popular.
We need a metaphor that can cope with her awesome plunge in the public’s esteem!
How about “as popular as a barker’s egg on a wedding cake”?
10
crakar24 @#105 – I’m not sure the GG would have to step in. If it comes down to Gillard being knifed, it amounts to the ALP deliberately doing the equivalent of guzzling hemlock to save what’s left of its honour. IMO the only reason it would do that is to dump the carbon tax, which also means dumping the Greens. Provided of course that Crean (or whoever else drinks of the grim chalice) can utter the words “We’re through” before Bob Brown throws the mother of all hissy fits and walks out first.
Once that’s done, the Government has no constitutional legitimacy and has to go… but if this happens at all, it means that saner heads have prevailed and Quentin Bryce would probably get a heads-up call that it was all over and the outgoing Prime Minister was on his way to ask for an election.
If she’s replaced by yet another turgid newbie who can’t recognise reality, it may be a different matter. Her Excellency might then have to steel herself for a repeat performance of 1975. Except that this time, the block would be in the LOWER House.
10
If the science is sound, why these lies?
IF THE science on global warming is so good, why are we told such lies?
That is the true disgrace of those behind the ad that features Cate Blanchett telling us to “say yes” to the Gillard Government’s carbon dioxide tax.
It’s not that it stars a multi-millionaire actor blithely instructing the little people to pay a tax that she wouldn’t even feel herself.
It’s not that it stars a hypocrite telling us to cut our emissions while she herself jets off to Cannes, New York and LA, and helps to flog luxury Audi cars.
No, it’s the lies that should shame Blanchett and the ad’s other star, Michael Caton, of Packed to the Rafters, who are not responsible for them, but speak the lines put in their mouths.
It’s the flagrant lies in this ad that should shame all the green groups and unions which made the wretched thing—and that should warn the rest of us there is much less to this scare than such shameless people claim.
How dare they? And where are the regulators? Does the Advertising Standards Bureau exempt global warming alarmists from its demand that “ads shall not be misleading or deceptive”?
The lies start with the very first shot of the ad, showing Caton standing under black skies made filthy by a power station billowing soot — labelled “carbon”.
Says Caton: “What if we say yes to making big companies pay when they pollute our skies? We’d be saying yes to less carbon pollution.”
Stop right there.
First, where in Australia are our skies black with “carbon”?
Answer: nowhere. The ad describes a problem we don’t actually have.
Do our power stations—the main target of the carbon dioxide tax—actually belch out black smoke like that?
No. Most coal-fired ones here emit little more than steam and invisible gas. Drive past one and see for yourself.
So what power station are we shown in this ad?
The Battersea plant in Britain.
Does it vomit out black soot like that?
No, it was closed almost 30 years ago.
So will the Government’s tax close the Battersea plant? Don’t be an idiot.
Well, will the tax at least remove that sooty carbon in our skies Caton wants gone?
No, because the sign perched over Caton’s head deceives, too. The Government’s “carbon” tax is not actually designed to remove carbon, which is a solid, but carbon dioxide, which is a gas that’s invisible, as you can see when you breathe out.
And that is what makes Blanchett’s big scene completely wrong.
She appears in the ad, trilling that the tax would be “finally doing something about climate change”, and demonstrating that change by replacing the sooty skies with a clean, sun-filled one.
That imagery is another lie.
No, this tax has got nothing at all to do with giving us cleaner and sunnier skies. Zero. Zip.
Pretending it will is a contemptible deceit—and so are most of the other claims put in the mouths of the unwitting actors in this ad.
How about the actor who claims that by saying “yes” to the Government’s tax, we’ll be saying “yes to new money for clean energy that never runs out”?
One of the great problems with solar and wind power is that it does indeed run out.
Solar power stops when the sun doesn’t shine, and wind turbines stop turning when the wind dies.
This is not some silly debating point. It’s one of the hard facts that makes solar and wind power so horribly expensive.
To switch to such unreliable power sources means we still need backup power plants to take over when the renewables fail. That’s twice the infrastructure to guarantee the same power.
But back to the lying ad, which also shows a woman claiming we’d be saying “yes to help for people struggling with bills”.
Actually, the reverse is true. The tax will instead make those bills an even bigger struggle, because it will drive up the cost of electricity and everything made with it.
Only half the money the tax raises will come back in compensation for just some Australians, and no compensation will be enough for those whose jobs will be killed off by the higher cost of power.
Then there’s the claim by another woman in the ad that we’d be saying “yes to better health for our kids”.
Pardon? Where’s the proof for that emotive claim?
This seems a desperate attempt to suggest the Government’s tax will cut asthma-causing soot, rather than plant-stimulating carbon dioxide.
And then there is the ad’s ultimate fraud.
Just “say yes”, it urges.
But where? When? To whom?
The ad suggests we do actually have a choice—that the Government may even put the question to a vote in an election.
But as we know, we’ll get this tax without us ever having said “yes”.
Indeed, 146 of the 150 people in our House of Representatives were elected at the last election on the specific promise that they’d say “no” to it.
Yet here it is, to be imposed on us next year with no mandate. All we get is this ad, telling us to say “yes” to something to which our consent is in fact not sought and our objection is not heeded.
Such arrogance, and this ad drips with it.
Fancy the ad’s makers thinking we’d swallow falsehoods that wouldn’t fool a schoolgirl.
So how is it that such a deceitful and unscientific ad can not only be shown on television, but is endorsed by politicians demanding we “accept the science”.
All that the rest of us can conclude is that if alarmists responsible for the ad must tell such lies, then the truth can’t be so scary. And that, at least, is true.
10