JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Tuesday’s protest in Canberra

UPDATED with links to the speeches.

New version of Dr Art Raiche, Retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist – No Carbon Tax Rally, 16 August 2011<

David Archibald – No Carbon Tax Rally, 16 August 2011

Senator Bronwyn Bishop – No Carbon Tax Rally, 16 August 2011

David Archibald - No Carbon Tax Rally, 16 August 2011

All filmed by Phil Cole and edited by Sean Morris.

August 16th, 2011. It’s just another huge rally at Parliament House.

There was a crowd of 3000 according to the ABC report, but Nick Bryant from the BBC estimated 4,000-5,000, and significantly he also admitted that the crowd was not a red-neck, ute crowd, and that for many it was their first protest.  For others, like one doctor, it had cost them dearly to get to the rally (see the quotes from his piece below). Such is the passion of the protesters.

Canberra Protest against the Carbon Tax August 2011

And they filled the lawns. Photo: Dr Jim Sternhell

This is mainstream Australia talking

A few things struck me about crowd. Many of the protesters were old and retired, as one would expect from a protest in the middle of the week. Many were attending their first ever protest rally, which is more significant. Rising energy bills was something that had got these first-timers out in force. Nobody that I spoke to at the rally thought the Gillard minority government had any legitimacy, let alone any mandate. Most thought it incompetent, and said the carbon tax had crystallised broader fears.

A surprisingly high number, curiously, were Brits who have settled in Australia. Many were farmers and blue-collar workers. But I also ran into a GP, who had given up $2000 in consultation fees for the day to drive down to Canberra from Sydney. In other words, this crowd could not be written off as a “red-neck mob”, tempting though that caricature might be to supporters of the carbon tax. This was an Audi estate crowd as well as a “ute” crowd.

From the BBC report:

The speakers who received the most rapturous receptions were the ones who harnessed the simmering anger of the crowd. The Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella got sustained applause when she presented the carbon tax as a threat to the Australian way of life: “We don’t want to de-industrialise our country,” she bellowed.

But it was Senator Barnaby Joyce, the barnstorming Queensland populist, who probably got the biggest cheers of the day. “There are people in Australia who stay in bed because they cannot afford to stay warm,” he shouted, as his rosy face turned a deeper shade of red. “And that is disgusting that that happens in our nation.”

“It was your birthright. We had cheap power. That is one thing we had. And we had the choice between cheap power and cheap wages and we thought we would look after the Australian people. Give them a decent wage and go with cheap power. This woman wants to turn it around.”

Thanks To Jim Simpson from the Five Dock Sceptics for the photos.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tuesday’s protest in Canberra, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3d69tmb

106 comments to Tuesday’s protest in Canberra

  • #
    PJB

    The difference with Australia, as here in Canada, is the politeness of our society. We put up with injury and insult because we believe in the rule of law and the properness of our governing institutions. These same institutions would betray our trust and our heritage because they have a vested interest in an agenda that impoverishes us and enriches them. This may always have been the way of the world but that does not mean that it should be allowed or encouraged.
    This groundswell of sentiment is not self-interest so much as it is self-preservation. The survival imperative, as applied to self, family and community goes far above and beyond any ensconced system or authority that endeavors to remain in power to exercise control in an unjust and unfair manner.
    The time has come to stand up and take a stand for what is right and that is the will of the people. That they be small voices will not stop them from becoming a chorus that will reach a crescendo with the reversal of this and any other attempt to abridge their freedoms or reverse their prosperity.
    That is the true meaning of democracy and the liberty to exercise it.

    00

  • #

    When the Pols turn away from, turn a deaf ear to, and act as if they know better than the people who elected them, a country has suffered a take over, a coup d’état. Many will deny it has happened, but the facts speak for themselves. Freedom isn’t free, dear friends! Be vigilant! Sounds like it’s high time for another election down under. God bless you all!

    A Yank

    00

  • #
    selle

    Did anyone record the speeches from Sky news or from the day ?
    Please post the links if so.

    00

  • #

    These sorts of rallies are always more effective when some humour is scattered among the anger. The humour indicates a level of confidence which puts fear into the hearts of the intended target; Labor in this case.

    If I was Tony Abbott, my first words to the rally would have been….

    “THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD”

    00

  • #
    Grumpy Old Man

    “A surprisingly high number, curiously, were Btits who have settled in Australia”. Those Brits emigrated to Oz to get away from all this ultra-left swamp-emanations.

    00

  • #
    spartacusisfree

    The letter from UK PM Cameron to Gillard on the 22nd July supporting the Australian carbon tax can be read in two ways. One is that Cameron [who has been told the IPCC's claims are bunkum and we're currently cooling to the 2030s] is pretending to want a carbon tax to placate the Liberal Democrat coalition partners OR that he is being hen-pecked by his eco-fascist wife whose baronet dad reportedly earns £3.5 million a year from farming wind subsidies.

    You really must realise that the whole scam has been pushed by the bankers who want carbon trading and to reap the profits from renewables, also the Marxists who want with the bankers to get World government and slash living standards in the developed countries. The UN has set up 600 new bureaucracies recently as part of this plan.

    Malcolm Turnbull used to run Goldman Sachs Australia. GS funded Obama. Gore stands to control carbon trading with his company run by the ex CEO of GS. He and Obama were directors of the group which set up the Chicago carbon exchange, Gore got carbon trading into Kytoto on the behalf of Bernie Lay of Enron, for heaven’s sake.

    Look for who pays Gillard. We know that Tony Blair and Merkel are tied in with Deutsche Bank. Ultimately, the establishment of an oligopoly to control electricity grid prices, to have smart meters and to forbid heating from any other fuel [heat pumps are being forced on the EU] is aimed at getting a ‘liberal fascistic’ society where the State controls your life and can punish you by taking away your right to energy.

    00

  • #
    gbrecke

    The study of Parasites is worthwhile. The unskeptical hosts will defend the infestation till there is no blood left to suck. Critical Thinking is reserved for the Skeptic..

    00

  • #
    The Trucks are Coming ...

    It was long & painful, but for all her achievements it was a new Tax That finally brought down Margaret Thatcher. A Tax too far, the Poll Tax, was only replacing an existing property (ownership) Tax, with a fundamentally regressive tax on everybody, irrespective income or ability to pay.
    That’s what this is, despite all the sweetener / give aways, & disguising it by just Taxing the big producers, who then just pass it on to everybody.
    A Tax Too Far.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    It is good to see.

    This is getting close to the top of the agenda, and is creating a buzz in political back offices – the polly’s are finally realising that they may have underestimated the mood (or overstepped the possible). Those in the bubble are hunkering down – they are frightened. Gentle pressure, steady as you go.

    Did anybody think to bring the popcorn?

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Thank you Jo Nova. A picture speaks a thousand words. Have you got pictures of the Convoy of No Confidence from Perth, Port Hedland or Katherine? I can only send you one from my car park in Brisbane City….

    00

  • #
    Ferdinand

    Politicinas don’t succeed by being right, but only by keeping power. They will vote for evil if it keeps them in power.

    00

  • #
    will gray

    The speeches were excellent, I wont to know WHO was that scientist from the csiro- he was saying the REAL scientist left as middle management expanded and politicised. That NOW its just a brand of the goverment, that computer models overule data.
    The next speaker was also great I believe he was from the Galileo movement detailing Co2s mistaken role in driving climate- very articulate.
    I was so amazed at the coffin vehicle totally amazing.
    Must go I work as handyman in blue mountains- I check in 4 hours-
    Q. who was that ex-csiro scientist.

    00

  • #
    will gray

    A transcript of the speeches would be GREAT- just saying.

    00

  • #

    One idea that the convoy could take to Canberra is a proposal that all politicians and their officials be held accountable to the same laws that they devised and expect the rest of Australia to abide by.

    What right have politicians to raid the public purse and use the money as if it were there own.

    Andrew Bolt today mentions a politician who allegedly thought he could use a credit card that wasn’t his for his own purposes,and it looks as though the Labor government is protecting him.

    What’s the difference when it is the Australian publics credit card that is being unlawfully used?

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    The ABC and many commenters judge the success or otherwise of our protests by the number who attend. The comparison with the anti Vietnam marches is somewhat strange. The moratorium marches were led bt ALP parliamentarians and trade unionists who were expected to be there by their delegates as well as uni students and many young men who were not prepared to do their duty. A fairly easily assembled crowd who arrived by public transport and who gave up nothing to be there. By contrast the participants in Tuesdays protest had to pay their own way and in many cases gave up one or two days wages.

    Alex Sloane from ABC radio when speaking to Barnaby Joyce showed the level of scientific knowledge of the left elite is inferior to the accumulated knowledge of those old fogies who she and others so readily criticise as dinosaurs and scientific illiterates. As data continues to trump models the Alex Sloanes of this world will find it increasingly difficult to denigrate the pragmatists in the sceptic camp.

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    I find it interesting that a passer-by can clearly observe and report facts that the mainstream media either doesn’t observe or fails to report, for whatever reason. I work nearby Parliament House and often walk up Federation Mall on my lunch break, and I did so on the day of this protest. There has been derisive criticism of the attendees in the media, along the lines that they were all bussed in from Sydney and clearly had nothing better to do, i.e. they’re not passionate about the cause. I beg to differ. Yes, I observed about 20-30 buses parked all over the place behind Old Parliament House, but I have to tell you that there were hundreds more cars parked on nature strips, in no-parking zones, in parkland – wherever they could fit – with NSW, Vic and some Qld number plates. Now, the parking is tight at the best of times around here, but this was clearly evidence of a lot of people coming a long way at their own expense, which to me translates as “passionate about the cause”. As for the behaviour of the crowd: well, any large demonstration will attract the fringe ratbags, and there were a few about, but the overwhelming majority were polite but grim, well-presented, and yes, mostly near or past retirement age. Now, I wear a suit and have an access pass dangling from a lanyard round my neck, and I walk around with iPod ear-buds – I look, no, reek “Government”. But I felt completely safe wandering amongst this crowd, was never threatened with even a stern look. These are genuinely concerned, law-abiding citizens aiming to give the Government a piece of their minds. Anyone who says otherwise and was there was wearing political blinkers.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Glenn@11
    Hi, thanks for reporting your first hand observational evidence. But, what do the models say, after all intelligent observation by rational minded people cannot possibly be correct unless it correlates well with peer reviewed protest crowd modeling “data”. Must be observation error, Lol.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    I realize that this has been posted previously, however, this duscussion is probably a more appropriate place for it…………….

    We made the effort to travel down to Canberra from Coffs for the day .
    We left at midnight, drove to Newcastle for 4 hours, caught the bus from there to Canberra, attended the rally, caught the bus back to Newcastle and then drove 4 hours back to Coffs to arrive home around 1am.
    It was a very long and tireing day but it had to be done !!!

    We are so ANGRY with this ILLEGITIMATE communist gillard “government”.

    ELECTION NOW !

    For the record a head count was performed at the rally in Canberra and the attendance was over 5000 people,

    The ABC only started filming AFTER the rally and when the majority of the crowd had dispersed !!
    We witnessed this first hand!

    I saw a bit more of our Democracy eroded yesterday at the Rally in Canberra. Bronwyn Bishop addressed the crowd – the first of Our MPs. She told us that gillard had decided to move the afternoon session of Parliament back – from 2pm to 1:15pm so that swan could speak on an important matter!!! Remember, the Rally started at 12noon. This meant that those MPs wanting to address the gathered crowd, would have their time cut short as they would need to be back in time for this sitting. I bet she thought she had won! The crowd booed and jeered this – what she did was add to the anger out there!

    We still got to hear Tony, Warren, Barnaby, Sophie, and Bronwyn and many other wonderful speakers. The organisers moved the opening back to 11.30am – those still streaming off the buses only missed the announcements like where toilets, first aid etc. were. And we heard early from the bus driver from Melbourne – what a passionate man he was! I think those walking up from the bottom heard him anyway – he certainly was loud and proud to be an Aussie! gillard is a disgrace and will use any method to stop the people from hearing the truth. Lying will bring this government down!

    00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    I do not mind being insulted, but I insist that it is done using Australian slang, not US racist terms like “redneck”. There must be lots of australian words that would be appropriate, perhaps some creative Leftist could come up with a new “enlightened”"and “progressive” term to insult people who resent being lied to by the Left.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Any attempt to introduce a new tax, from a minority government can only be described as political insanity.

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Can I recommend this essay, THE REAL GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS (or ‘Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism’), which demonstrates exactly why it is ordinary people travelling to Canberra, and why the ‘elites’ oppose them?

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    If we get another opportnity to elect the representatives for the Commonwealth of Australia, I say IF because it appears there is a strong movement from Canberra and the MSM to avoid an election at all costs and there is also a strong determination by the current government (I use the word loosely) to marginalize anyone who disagrees with their policies (I again use the work loosely).
    So, if we get another opportnity to elect the representatives for the Commonwealth of Australia, I believe that the result will be a wipeout for the ALP in all states with the exception of SA and TAS. Protests like Tuesday push this into the awareness of the many politicians who are about to lose their job.
    The convoy will further increase the pressure.
    The only problem is that the decimation of the current regime will come later rather than sooner.

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Rick @21 – Very good Essay!!! Everyone should have a read. It makes an unfortunate amount of sense.

    00

  • #

    Bruce D Scott at comment 19,
    I agree wholeheartedly that here in Oz, that term ‘redneck’ should not be used, and notice that it’s mainly used by those of the left, which is odd for Australia, considering those of the left automatically detest anything American, which is the origin of that term.
    The derivation of the term ‘redneck’ dates from the late 19th Century.
    It was used with reference to poor Southern Farmers who toiled all day in their field in the sun, hence ending up with sunburned backs of their necks, so, in reality it’s a put down of farmers.
    Our farmers here in Oz are not that stupid.
    They all wear hats.
    (Hey! No Volvo jokes you lot!)
    Tony

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    There is only political party in Australia which is openly sceptical of the science behind AGW and that is The Climate Sceptics [TCS]. TCS oppose any financial or government measures to ‘solve’ AGW while supporting unblinkered research into climate change so that genuine predictions and planning can occur in anticipation of those real changes. An example of where AGW has corrupted proper prediction occurred in the QLD floods; these were exacerbated by the misuse of Wivenhoe as a drought mitigation facility instead of a flood mitigation facility; the reason it was used to store water for drought mitigation is because AGW predictions had indicated droughts rather than normal periodic floods would occur.

    TCS would stop this sort of abuse from happening.

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    A Yes to carbon tax rally was held in Tamworth on the 14th, supporting Tony Windsor. Only 30 – 40 people attended. I can’t see much in the local press about this?

    At least in the USA a Republican nominee Rick Perry is out talking against global warming. I hope he might get the backing of his party?

    00

  • #
    pat

    when will people realise EVERYONE will pay, including those who have been promised compensation:

    17 Aug: Port Stephens Advertiser: No carbon footprint but still hit by tax
    A PORT Stephens timber manufacturer will bear the burden of a 20 per cent price-hike in electricity costs under a carbon tax, despite its claim of having a zero carbon footprint.
    Weathertex, a company which manufactures timber material from 100 per cent natural hardwood, will be hit with higher costs despite omitting less carbon than the timber stores.
    In 2009 an independent report into Weathertex greenhouse gas emissions found each kilogram of Weathertex timber stored 1.633kg of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere. However, during the manufacturing of the timber, the equivalent carbon omitted was slightly less at 1.599kg. Weathertex CEO Paul Michael said his timber was the only real product of its kind, containing no artificial glues or binders.
    “We have a zero carbon footprint,” he said.
    “Actually, it’s better then zero and no other building material can do that.”…
    http://www.portstephensexaminer.com.au/news/local/news/general/no-carbon-footprint-but-still-hit-by-tax/2261504.aspx

    so little is being said about the ETS our Govt intends to come on line in 2015, yet it is so much more damaging than the carbon (dioxide) tax. the convoy needs to have some placards that read: “NO CO2 TAX AND NO ETS”
    recently NZ and our Govt were praising the ETS in NZ – the fact they intend to link their scheme to ours might have something to do with that. however, not everyone is happy and, even tho agriculture is SUPPOSED TO BE EXEMPT in Australia, who knows where this is all heading:

    1 Aug: Ninemsn: Fonterra farmers reject NZ’s ETS structure
    Instead, New Zealand should look at Australia, which planned to cut emissions from farming through a carbon farming initiative, Mr Ferrier said…
    Mr Ferrier told a climate change and business conference in Wellington that bringing agriculture into the scheme would be a disincentive to farmers and force food production to move to other countries…
    The Labour Party has previously called for agriculture to be included in the scheme from 2013, with responsibility for 90 per cent of 2005 emissions, but Dr Smith has ruled that out, and said that the Government had yet to decide on whether farmers should pay, and if so, when.
    “It is a marginal call to include agriculture, given that no other country is doing so and the limited mitigations currently available to farmers,” Dr Smith said on Monday.
    “Globally New Zealand agriculture would be the hardest-hit trade-exposed industry of any industry anywhere in the world…
    Dr Smith said the government found “inexplicable” the idea of treating agricultural emissions significantly tougher in New Zealand than emissions from industries such as aluminium, steel and methanol.
    Under such a policy, a farmer would be paying five times more for their emissions than Rio Tinto or Methanex.
    Agriculture Minister David Carter last month promised the nation’s farmers that they would not be made accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions unless trading partners were also feeling some of the financial pain…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8279918

    so everyone should feel the PAIN, David Carter! nice.
    guess the following pain wasn’t reported in the MSM in Australia, even tho Qantas attended the seminar, because we can’t have the public hearing all this NEGATIVE stuff, can we?

    2 Aug: China Daily: Emissions scheme due for rough landing
    BEIJING – Air transport associations and 21 airlines from home and abroad expressed strong opposition at a seminar on Monday against an EU plan to force countries into its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)…
    Those who do not join the system will face fines and flight suspensions…
    Air transport associations and 21 airlines from home and abroad expressed strong opposition at a seminar on Monday against an EU plan to force countries into its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)…
    Hosted by the China Air Transport Association, the seminar was attended by eight mainland airlines and 13 overseas carriers including American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, as well as one from Africa, one from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and two from Taiwan.
    The imposed tax is more than just “inappropriate”, said Zhang Baojian, regional vice-president of International Air Transport Association North Asia.
    “The EU ETS is illegal,” he said.
    Though the ETS plan is part of the EU’s climate policy, it is not helping emission reductions at all, and could be counterproductive, airline delegates said.
    Mark Watson, head of environmental affairs with Cathay Pacific, said the EU ETS penalizes non-stop long-haul flights, which are more fuel-efficient than flights with intermediate stops…
    In addition, the EU has not guaranteed the revenues generated by the sale of carbon trading permits will be directed to environmental or climate change projects. It means individual EU member states will be able to generate additional revenues from aviation, he said.
    A good example, Watson said, is in the United Kingdom where departing passengers pay Air Passenger Duty, which was established as an environmental tax but is used to swell the general taxation pot, he said.
    Australia, New Zealand and Japan are also mulling over schemes to charge airlines for emitting CO2 in their airspace.
    Airlines are likely to be charged more than once for the same CO2 emissions, and the cost will eventually be passed on to passengers.
    “We are not in denial about climate change and we are serious about tackling our environmental responsibilities… Our emission must be regulated – but this needs to be done at a global level through the implementation of a global approach,” Watson (Mark Watson, head of environmental affairs with Cathay Pacific) said.
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-08/02/content_13033312.htm

    Mr. Watson, how about we just scrap the whole damn thing.

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    You are not alone.

    The media reported only 3 thousand people showing up on us too. Something funny happened though. We took over congress.

    View from Nancy Pelosi’s angle.

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    The protest was great. The difficult part will be keeping the ETS front and centre in the lead up to the next election. The Labor Party will be trying to bury it as an election issue.

    00

  • #
    pat

    yes, this is published in a Murdoch newspaper, but as ABC spends an inordinate amount of air-time knocking Murdoch, it seems fair:

    18 Aug: Australian: Judith Sloan: Their ABC is just ungovernable
    Judith Sloan was deputy chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation between 1999 and 2005. She is an economist and company director.
    THE ABC has been in the news lately as it makes routine decisions to cancel some of its programs.
    According to the unions and the Friends of the ABC, the end is nigh…
    The board is also responsible for ensuring that “gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial, according to recognised standards of journalism”.
    In a nutshell: efficiency, something for everyone, independence and veracity, but very little guidance in reality.
    As a board member, I always got the impression from staff members that, according to their view of the world, directors come and go, while we are here forever. To be sure, they would generally be polite and attempt to provide some information. But there was little doubt about who was in charge: them.
    Take the example of remuneration and terms of employment of staff…
    The reality is that many well-known ABC presenters have individually tailored employment arrangements — some are even employed through companies — with lots of hidden perks and side benefits.
    So when those talented presenters railed against the evils of Work Choices with its individual employment agreements, there was a distinct odour of double standards undetectable to the public…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/their-abc-is-just-ungovernable/story-e6frg6zo-1226116939458

    btw i have never watched commercial TV, apart from an odd documentary or sporting event. what little TV i did watch was ABC or SBS, and both are now toxic and, given their programming, it wouldn’t bother me if they were disbanded.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Albert

    The ABC downplays the numbers at anti carbon tax rallys and increases the numbers for pro carbon tax rallys organised by Labor’s GetUp movement.

    00

  • #
    debbie

    ROFL,
    Steve @ 31
    OMG what next indeed?
    What are you going to do JO?
    You simply don’t fit at all :)
    What nonsense…’white male conservatism’
    Just another example of this excellent comment I have often used when discussing the shameful hijacking of statistics:
    “If you torture figures for long enough, they will admit to anything!”
    I am SO OVER those statistical, predictive, computer models.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    FEDERAL LABOR MP CRAIG THOMPSON authorized escort agency payment

    http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/mp-authorized-escort-agency-payment/20110801-1i7m6.html

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Here is a carbon calculator that will give some idea of the increase in your electricity costs alone under gillard’s TREASONOUS carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax……..

    http://energyaction.com.au/CarbonTax1.htm

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    Here is a Wind Farm protest website worth checking out !

    http://www.epaw.org/

    00

  • #

    papertiger @ 28

    I know now wwhy we are in such dire straits…noone can add up, has math been dropped from our schools for some other fanciful subject like environmental greenism.

    They need to do a bit bitter I think, 3000 people indeed .haha !!

    Say YES to an election now !!!

    00

  • #
    Steve Herczeg

    How cool is that!

    I attended the rally on Tuesday, have been reading the various accounts and now I see myself in a picture at the rally.

    I’m the guy in the white shirt, white “No Carbon Tax” cap and dark sunglasses in the very bottom left of the picture (just above the “And” in the caption).

    I’m not really looking for notoriety or proof I was there, but I’m chuffed.

    Thanks for supporting the various rallys over the past six months, and hope you will until this useless tax is removed from the Agenda.

    00

  • #

    We should start now and tell the Libs that if the ETS is introduced they will get the same treatment as the Labor/Greens. We need to make sure each of our MP’s are up to speed with the wishes of the electorate and not some back room deal.

    Listening to question time today the Labor party are fighting tooth and nail to hang on by using the strategy that the Libs plan to cut emissions by 5% by 2020. The Libs are fighting back tho it’s a grand tussle, almost like a 15 round prize fight. he he.

    Say YES to an election now !!

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Damian Allen: #18

    She told us that Gillard had decided to move the afternoon session of Parliament back – from 2pm to 1:15pm so that swan could speak on an important matter!!!

    Gillard only hears what she wants to hear. In fact, she surrounds herself with advisors who only tell her what she wants to hear. It would have been one of these advisors who suggested moving the afternoon session.

    This is what we call “the bubble”.

    It lets no reality in. Those on the inside only hear their own voices, and they only consume their own analysis based on the facts that they themselves have derived from their own consensus. Do you see the pattern here? Do you see why those in the bubble see nothing wrong with the way that climate science works. There is a consensus, so it is settled.

    00

  • #
  • #
    memoryvault

    rjm385 @ 38

    I’ve posted many times about the fallacy of thinking simply having an election is going to make everything “all better”.

    At the moment Australians have a choice of being screwed by Labor or sodomised by the Coalition. The one advantage getting screwed has over being sodomised is that at least you can identify your rapist.

    At the moment we can quite rightly claim that JuLIAR has no mandate to introduce her climate change policy. Where do we stand if we elect Tony with an overwhelming majority and the Coalition still have THEIR climate change policy firmly in place?

    Surely we will have given the Libs/Nats a MANDATE to introduce it? The taxes to finance it will then follow as surely as night follows day, regardless of what is said during the election campaign. What do people suggest we do then? Another “Convoy to Canberra”?

    Until and unless we start working towards some way of forcing the Coalition to drop stupid policies aimed at trying to control the weather, then we are certainly no better off with a Coalition government, and possibly in an even worse position.

    Realistically that means ensuring the Libs/Nats understand that anger with JuLIAR and Labor will not automatically translate into more votes for the Coalition. And the only way to do that is to field a team for the Senate in each State.

    Yes, it means a lot of hard work. But the truth is, anything less now is simply pointless hand-waving.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Well I’m more optimistic. I’ve read that governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. The Liberals would be stupid to try to do anything about the climate. I think they would be watching the performance of the Climate Sceptics Party very closely in the next election.

    Got my purple balloons and my Aussie flag. Looking forward to being part of the convoy leaving Adelaide on Saturday.

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    MemoryVaukt you are right the coalition voted for the RET. Our electricity industry is financially unstable and needs help now. That means not putting it under threat with stupid alternative energy policies. The only alternative is nuclear the coalition should say so and dump the stupid folly of wind and solar. Stop funding nonsense schemes and pass laws to ensure investment security we needed it years ago!

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Ian Hill @ 42

    Yes, governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. The question we have to ask ourselves is, who will replace the government when they LOSE?

    The Liberals would be stupid to try to do anything about the climate.

    I repeat, as things stand now the Liberals have a “climate change” policy, and if elected with an “overwhelming” majority, they will be able to claim an “overwhelming” mandate to introduce their “climate change” policy.

    If you think the impending shuffle of Liberal Senators to put yet another Goldman Sachs Turnbull clone into the mix, is just pure coincidence, you are displaying the kind of naivete of a child that believes in the tooth fairy.

    I think they would be watching the performance of the Climate Sceptics Party very closely in the next election.

    Let’s break that down into two parts, shall we? First of all, “watching” what happens in the next election is rather pointless. AFTER the next election will be too late to change any of the issues confronting us NOW.

    Second, while I wish them no ill-will, by their very name the Climate Sceptics Party identify themselves to the public at large as a “single issue party”. Single-issue parties are poison when it comes to election time. I would be happy to bet money they won’t even secure three percent of the vote.

    Don Chipp showed how to do it in 1977.

    Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Hey listen to this great song I just found on YouTube.
    Enough`s Enough , C`mon fair go were The Lucky Country
    “Take your Toxic Tax and let us be”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ZkQuepsA4

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Single-issue parties are poison when it comes to election time.

    You see, that’s the genius of preferences. You can send a message AND vote for a candidate.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MV@44; even if TCS is a “single issue” party it is such a dominant issue, poisoning every aspect of our society that if TCS does its homework and has the wit to press other points then electoral success against AGW should allow other issues to come under the TCS banner; after all opposition to AGW also includes support for integrity of property ownership [Spencer, Thompsons], due process and wider aspects of law and order, the impartiality of the CSIRO, BoM, the ABC and an accounting of public expenditure and bureacratic compliance, not to mention an analysis of Australia’s soverignty and proper conformity to international obligations in respect of immigration and UN mandates.

    TCS is not a one issue party but it is focused on the biggest issue.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Cohenite @ 47

    Much as I would like to agree with you, the sad reality is that around a third of Australia’s population don’t even understand a connection between “climate change” and a “carbon tax”. Hence the disparity between those who believe “something” must be done about the first, but are opposed to any form of the second.

    On top of that I’d be prepared to bet money that a goodly percentage of them have no idea what “sceptic” means, outside of it possibly referring to some kind of sewage disposal system.

    One thing I do know for sure is that the moment a minor party starts to develop “policies” on a range of subjects – as you suggest – then they are as good as dead.

    Don Chipp founded his party with a totally non-issue name – the Australian Democrats – and ran on a single “one size fits all” policy – to keep the bastards honest. For as long as the Democrats stuck with it, they prospered. The day they decided to branch out into developing “policies” was the day they started to die the death of a thousand cuts.

    I say again, single-issue parties (even if only in name) are anathema with the Australian electorate. Minor parties with no hope of ever controlling the treasury benches coming out with full-blown “policies” are treated with even more contempt by the electorate.

    Don Chipp showed us how to capture the electorate’s attention.
    Brownshirt Bob showed us how to leverage that into control of the Senate.

    We either learn how to use those lessons, or we learn how to live with some kind of “climate tax”.

    It really is THAT simple.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Tel @ 46

    You see, that’s the genius of preferences. You can send a message AND vote for a candidate.

    So, two percent of the population vote TCS and then give their second preference to the Libs/Nats (who else are they going to give them to)?

    The Libs/Nats get elected in a landslide with 60%+ of the two-party preferred vote, of which the TCS contributed 2% – who probably would have voted Libs/Nats anyway if the TCS didn’t exist.

    That’s enough to put a brake on things until the following election when our new group can supplant the Greens just as the Greens supplanted the Democrats.

    Do you really believe, under those circumstances, the Libs/Nats are going to turn around and say – “boy, we really got sent a message there – we better drop our climate change policy right now”.

    Forget the House of Representatives. The anger and dissatisfaction in the community at the moment translates into four to six seats in the Senate simply by putting some believable people up for the electorate to vote for.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Myself @ 49

    Apologies – the sentence -

    That’s enough to put a brake on things until the following election when our new group can supplant the Greens just as the Greens supplanted the Democrats.

    should have been the final sentence in the post. Something went awry between hitting the “preview” and “submit” buttons.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    The only thing good about the Coalition’s climate ploicy is that it can essily be cosigned to the “round metal file” when convenient.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    MV @ 44

    I repeat, as things stand now the Liberals have a “climate change” policy, and if elected with an “overwhelming” majority, they will be able to claim an “overwhelming” mandate to introduce their “climate change” policy.

    Given that even a drover’s dog would understand why they “won” the election, I somehow doubt that.

    If you think the impending shuffle of Liberal Senators to put yet another Goldman Sachs Turnbull clone into the mix, is just pure coincidence, you are displaying the kind of naivete of a child that believes in the tooth fairy.

    I didn’t know about any of that so I’m not thinking anything. I’m just a bloke down at the pub.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Mark @ 51

    The only thing good about the Coalition’s climate ploicy is that it can essily be cosigned to the “round metal file” when convenient.

    Right. So the Libs/Nats are going to go all the way through an election carrying a stinking dead albatross around their necks which is doing them no end of political harm, just so they can ditch it in the waste-paper basket at the end?

    And the pending appointment to the Senate for the Liberals of yet another Goldman Sachs created, Turnbull clone who has many times spoken on the “need” for an ETS is just a coincidence, to be ignored?

    Right.

    And I hope Santa Klaus brings you that electric train set you’ve always wanted, as well.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Tony will have his work cut out managing the 130+ lower house members of the new govt. I just hope that they boycott the ABC and SBS journalists!
    With a govt of that size I would expect lots of committees (to keep them busy). I am sure there will be a committee looking into climate “science” and a new climate policy..

    00

  • #
    Norma

    “will gray” – hope you have come back.
    That scientist at the rally you asked about – Art Raiche.
    A little story, and video of his speech here:

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Ian Hill @ 52

    Given that even a drover’s dog would understand why they “won” the election, I somehow doubt that.

    JuLIAR knows she managed to scrape into a minority government with the phrase “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.” And then she introduced a carbon tax.

    And yet you believe a Coalition government elected with (what they will claim) to be an “overwhelming mandate” for the policies they ran with – including a “climate change” policy – will not introduce that policy?

    Tell me, what are hoping Santa brings you this Xmas?

    I didn’t know about any of that so I’m not thinking anything. I’m just a bloke down at the pub.

    A Liberal Party Senator has announced her intention to retire. The person anointed to replace her is an ex investment banker – just like Turnbull, an ex protege and product of Goldman Sachs – the people who will profit from an ETS scheme – just like like Turnbull, a committed supporter of Turnbull, and a past and present very vocal supporter of carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes.

    If you can’t work out what is happening then perhaps you’ve spent a little too much time down at the pub.

    00

  • #
    pat

    for starters, it’s time for the Coalition to say what their plans are regarding the ETS (emissions trading scheme). it worries me that the ETS is off the radar. it needs to be part of the no carbon tax campaign.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I was joking about the pub MV.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    pat @ 57

    for starters, it’s time for the Coalition to say what their plans are regarding the ETS (emissions trading scheme). it worries me that the ETS is off the radar. it needs to be part of the no carbon tax campaign.

    Pat, there is no “secret” about the Coalition’s “climate” policy.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx

    All that is missing is how they intend (realistically) to finance it.

    At the end of the day it boils down to their version of how to tackle a non problem by funneling billions of dollars of taxpayers money through Goldman Sachs.

    All for a fee, of course.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Ian Hill @ 58

    I figured that Ian, and I know you’re a good bloke.

    But I’ve had a lot to do with politics, political parties, and the “promises” these scoundrels make over the years. You might say i take it kind of seriously.

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Jack Taylor @ 29;

    The ABC is already complicit in that strategy. Have you noticed the drop off recently in Carbon Tax and Global Warming stories on the Drum?

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Memoryvault @ 41

    Sceptical as I am, I nevertheless suspect that Abbott et al have got the message.

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    MemoryVault is spot on. Kick Labor out at the next election, and the next clowns in will bring in the same policies under a different guise. There are government departments that are established for just such a cause. The entire CO2 argument and infrastructure needs to be disbanded and put to bed. You can’t fiddle around with any discussion of potential CO2 taxes. Any doubt gives credence to a CO2 supporting argument and government departments that remain in place will have a focus to bring in a tax. Texas governor and US presidential hopeful Rick Perry just laid his Republican cards on the table. CO2 science has involved manipulation of data. If the science is not settled…lay the political aspect of the argument to rest. The party I support will not have any CO2 tax as part of its policy (as the science currently stands). The Liberals need to hear this from the electorate. At present and in my mind, the National Party stands to gain most at the next election, but they need to differentiate themselves from the Coalition and express themselves as leaders rather than little siblings to their Liberal mates.

    00

  • #

    I was struck by the comment “many were old”. The old timers remember the really tough times when bad weather was just that, not some sort of global conspiracy to steal their money. The Tea Party in the US has some young members, but many are old timers. They remember freedom, and real adversity. Asversity is not to be feared, but used as a learning tool. Our governments are trying to deprive citizens of that valuable tool.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Note that company promoting government’s “clean energy future” appearing in one of the many TV ads is Geodynamics which boasts that its geothermal “granite body” has enough stored heat to potentially provide Australia with 10-20% of its electricity needs for the next 100 years. See here
    why it so so keen to promote the government. After years of recording $millions in losses it becomes the beneficiary of Labor’s generosity.On 14 July 2010, Geodynamics announced that it had executed a $90 million funding deed with the Federal Government under the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program (REDP). The grant represents the largest amount awarded to any project under the REDP program.
    Why isn’t the government compelled to reveal this information in the ad.
    I am pleased to announce that I receive no funding from no-one to promote my climate skeptic comments.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    MemoryVault is spot on. Kick Labor out at the next election, and the next clowns in will bring in the same policies under a different guise.

    There’s no way the ETS can be repealed until early 2015 at the earliest. The coalition”s promise to repeal it is a lie.

    That’s an awful long time for the Coalition to decide to keep the ETS, because if they don’t, they will have to increase income taxes and / or cut pensions and family payments so the budget adds up.

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Best wishes and good luck to the Convoy of No Confidence. I am sure they speak for the majority of Australians.

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Adam Smith @ 68 says:

    “There’s no way the ETS can be repealed until early 2015 at the earliest.”

    Really? What about this scenario: one Labor MP goes (death, gaol, or corruption – probably the latter) and the Liberals or the National win the bye-election. Abbott forms Government and sets the scene for a Double Dissolution. Calls a Double Dissolution. Wins a majority in both the Reps and the Senate.

    Good night Irene. And bye bye Carbon (Dioxide) Tax. All done and dusted within 12 months.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    [Really? What about this scenario: one Labor MP goes (death, gaol, or corruption – probably the latter) and the Liberals or the National win the bye-election. Abbott forms Government ]
    These two things don’t follow. Currently the government has a majority 76 – 74. If there was a by-election (not bye-election), the numbers would then be 75 – 75.

    It is extremely unlikely that the Governor General would make Abbott PM, when after the nomination of the Speaker, the government would be in the minority. It would be much more likely that the G.G. would play it safe and let Gillard remain PM.

    Abbott forms Government and sets the scene for a Double Dissolution.

    What do you mean “sets the scene for a double dissolution”?

    As I explained above, the Governor General would not invite Abbott to form a government if the parliament is just in the same state as it is with the current PM. But let’s pretend that Abbott became PM, he even have the numbers to get a bill to repeal the ETS through the House (Labor, Bandt, Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor would have a blocking majority), how would he then be able to get the bill to the Senate and have it rejected twice with a three month gap?

    Another factor is once the ETS is law, there are probably several Coaliltion MPs who would refuse to vote to repeal it, Turnbull and Greg Hunt are the obvious ones.

    Wins a majority in both the Reps and the Senate.

    It is essentially impossible for a major party to win a majority at a double dissolution election. The quota for a senator goes down to just under 7.7% of the vote, which means the Greens would go close to winning 2 Senators in each state, and maybe even 3 in Tasmania, so that means the Greens would again hold the balance of power, and probably end up with 10 Senators.

    Good night Irene. And bye bye Carbon (Dioxide) Tax. All done and dusted within 12 months.

    Your scenario is straight out of a fantasy land, and is based on a lack of understanding of how Australia’s political system works.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Wins a majority in both the Reps and the Senate.

    In order to win a senate majority at a D.D. election, the Coalition would have to increase its Senate vote by about 10%.

    00

  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    Channel 10 here in Perth originally said that there were “hundreds” of people at the rally in their preview to the night’s bulletin. It was only when the story was run during the news that “thousands” were inserted.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith:
    August 19th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    There’s no way the ETS can be repealed until early 2015 at the earliest.

    Adam Smith:
    August 19th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
    It is extremely unlikely

    You contradict yourself. “no way” and “unlikely”, no matter the flavor are mutually exclusive. So apparently you were wrong in your first post or wrong in the second. The key word that appears in both clauses is wrong.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    You contradict yourself. “no way” and “unlikely”, no matter the flavor are mutually exclusive. So apparently you were wrong in your first post or wrong in the second. The key word that appears in both clauses is wrong.

    Err, I was commenting on two different things.

    I’ll say it again, once the ETS passes in October, it can only be repealed by very late 2014 or early 2015 at the absolute earliest.

    Once the ETS passes no government will ever repeal it, because doing so would cost billions of dollars.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    It is essentially impossible for a major party to win a majority at a double dissolution election. The quota for a senator goes down to just under 7.7% of the vote, which means the Greens would go close to winning 2 Senators in each state, and maybe even 3 in Tasmania, so that means the Greens would again hold the balance of power, and probably end up with 10 Senators.

    I have commented myself of the possible pitfalls and undesireable outcomes of rashly called DD elections. Yes, they can represent golden opportunities for minor parties and that is the very reason why so few are called.

    However, some history is useful to show what can happen and in fact, what did happen.

    In the 1975 DD election the electorate was polarised and polarised heavily against the ALP after their disastrous performance in government. The coalition won 34 of the possible 64 Senate seats at that time. 1 seat was won by the CLP (NT) and another 1 by the Liberal Movement (SA).. For the Senate that’s as good a majority as it gets.

    At the 1977 election, Fraser’s majority in both houses was largely untouched. Gough Whitlam was really a man of the left even though he never publicly admitted it until after the 1977 election when he resigned the party leadership. If anyone in the ALP is capable of repeating his disastrous electoral performance it would be Julia Gillard, also of the left.

    Legendary ALP numbers man Graham Richardson has stated publicly that the ALP backbenchers have accepted that they are going to be massacred next time around and seem weirdly resigned to it. Seems there’s no lemming like an ALP lemming.

    I well remember the smugness of many of the Whitlamites. Like Adam Smith they also knew everything and couldn’t be told anything.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Adam Smith @75

    Once the ETS passes no government will ever repeal it, because doing so would cost billions of dollars.

    You should be so proud of yourselves then. By misleading the public prior to the last election, ignoring a total ack of mandate for the policy, and entrenching your ideology to make it so expensive to unwind, you show yourselves to be nothing more than economic vandals. I hope for your sake that people have short memories.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith:
    August 19th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
    Err, I was commenting on two different things.

    Unless you are schizophrenic, you were commenting on the same thing. The possibility of ETS repeal. Someone pointed out a scenario where it was possible, and you said it was “extremely unlikely”. Man up and admit you were wrong. You still are.

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Adam Smith @ 71

    Bye-election or By-election? They’re both correct usage but your education is such that you probably don’t know that.

    Spell it either way and Abbott will still trounce the Labor/Green rabble in a Bye-election. That makes it 75/75.

    However, the Speaker’s position is a role that the self seeking independents would love to have to add to their parliamentary pension when they get tossed out totally at a Double Dissolution. Oakeshot would be only too happy to snap it up. That makes it 75/74; Abbott’s majority in the Reps.

    The Reps pass the Bill to rescind the Tax (with a disciplined team – even Malcolm in the middle knows what it’s like to be a turn-coat, he’s seen what happened to Mark Latham). Nevertheless, the Bill gets rolled in the Senate the requisite number of times and they go to a double Dissolution.

    At that poll they either win a majority in both Houses or sufficient numbers all up to ensure victory in the Joint Sitting. The Joint Sitting passes the Bill to rescind the Tax.As I say,they don’t need a majority in the Senate to do that – they just need a majority in the Joint Sitting.

    Good night Irene. Bye-bye Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Bye-bye Greens.

    Bye-bye Labor.

    And good riddance.

    2015 is still years away.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Adam Smith” yet another moronic GETUP TRAITOR…….

    00

  • #
    Mark

    At that poll they either win a majority in both Houses or sufficient numbers all up to ensure victory in the Joint Sitting. The Joint Sitting passes the Bill to rescind the Tax.As I say,they don’t need a majority in the Senate to do that – they just need a majority in the Joint Sitting.

    And that is the “kicker”.

    Thanks for that, I had something similar in my last comment but somehow it got lost during editing.

    I believe the Greens have peaked and that it’s all downhill from now. They could all be wiped out in one polarised election a la DLP in 1975. Even the Irish wiped them off their political map not long back.

    00

  • #

    [...] Tuesday’s protest in Canberra … with links to speeches [...]

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    At the 1977 election, Fraser’s majority in both houses was largely untouched. Gough Whitlam was really a man of the left even though he never publicly admitted it until after the 1977 election when he resigned the party leadership.

    What on earth are you going on about? Gough Whitlam was clearly a left wing politician his entire career. He certainly shifted Labor to the centre on some issues, e.g. the public funding of private education, but to say that someone who went to an election proposing universal health care and ending Australia’s participation in the Vietnam war wasn’t left wing is crazy.

    If anyone in the ALP is capable of repeating his disastrous electoral performance it would be Julia Gillard, also of the left.

    Um, aren’t you forgetting that Whitlam won the 1972 and 1974 elections?

    He was as left wing then as he was in 1977, and yet Australians voted for him, because they were sick of Australia being stuck in the late 1950s.

    Legendary ALP numbers man Graham Richardson has stated publicly that the ALP backbenchers have accepted that they are going to be massacred next time around and seem weirdly resigned to it. Seems there’s no lemming like an ALP lemming.

    Dear, oh dear, At this time 2 years ago the Turnbull was the Coalition leader. They were bitterly divided both between Libs and Nats and within the Nats on the issue of climate change. Yet the Coalition went very close to winning the 2010 election.

    The moral of the story is that it is a huge risk predicting the outcome of an election that doesn’t need to be held until November, 2013.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    You should be so proud of yourselves then. By misleading the public prior to the last election,

    Actually, Gillard said she would price carbon in the current parliament a couple of days before the election. The first sentence of The Australian’s summary of its pre-election interview stated the following:

    JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

    …ignoring a total ack of mandate for the policy, and entrenching your ideology to make it so expensive to unwind, you show yourselves to be nothing more than economic vandals.

    If you want to talk about lack of mandates, what about the 16 Coalition Senators still in parliament who were elected at the 2007 election on a policy of supporting an ETS, but voted against the CPRS twice?

    Why aren’t you now attacking them for going against the position that they were elected on? Why don’t they count as liars who are now pursuing an agenda that they don’t have a mandate for?

    To make this easier for you, here is the 16 Coalition Senators who you should demand support the Emissions Trading Scheme:

    Helen Coonan* (Coonan is actually resigning on Monday)
    Marise Payne
    John Williams
    Ian Macdonald
    Sue Boyce
    Ron Boswell
    Cory Bernardi
    Simon Birmingham
    Richard Colbeck
    David Bushby (the cat caller)
    Mitch Fifield
    Helen Kroger
    Susan Ryan
    David Johnston
    Alan Eggleston
    Michaela Cash

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Unless you are schizophrenic, you were commenting on the same thing. The possibility of ETS repeal. Someone pointed out a scenario where it was possible,

    Wrong, because the alternate scenario was based on a complete misunderstanding of Australia’s political system. In fact the scenario was seemed to be based on a PhilJourdan-like ‘understanding’ of Australia’s political system, because it asserted that the G.G. would make someone PM even if they didn’t have a majority in the House, and it asserted that a D.D. trigger could be set up without a bill passing the House.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    However, the Speaker’s position is a role that the self seeking independents would love to have to add to their parliamentary pension when they get tossed out totally at a Double Dissolution. Oakeshot would be only too happy to snap it up. That makes it 75/74; Abbott’s majority in the Reps.

    Not true! Labor offered Oakeshott the speakership, he thought about it but ultimately turned it down.

    The Reps pass the Bill to rescind the Tax (with a disciplined team – even Malcolm in the middle knows what it’s like to be a turn-coat, he’s seen what happened to Mark Latham).

    FFS! HOW can the reps pass a bill to repeal the ETS when 75 people vote against it (Labor 71 (assuming they lose the by-election), plus Bandt, WIlkie, Oakeshott and Windsor)?

    A BILL TO REPEAL THE ETS WON”T PASS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! THEREFORE IT CAN’T GET TO THE SENATE, THEREFORE THE SENATE CAN’T BLOCK IT ONCE, LET ALONE TWICE!

    Nevertheless, the Bill gets rolled in the Senate the requisite number of times and they go to a double Dissolution.

    1) Such a bill can’t get the the Senate because a Coalition government wouldn’t have the numbers to get it passed through the House (oh and this is also the reason why the Governor General would never make Abbott PM).
    2) Let’s PRETEND that such a bill did magically get through the House, what would happen is Labor and the Greens would then send the bill off to EVERY relevant Senate committee. It would then probably set up a new special committee and send the bill there too. It would then pass a motion in the Senate saying that the Senate has committees have a year or more to consider the implications of passing the bill.

    At that poll they either win a majority in both Houses or sufficient numbers all up to ensure victory in the Joint Sitting. The Joint Sitting passes the Bill to rescind the Tax.As I say,they don’t need a majority in the Senate to do that – they just need a majority in the Joint Sitting.

    Your scenario is fanciful, because you still haven’t explained how the bill passes the House when 75 MPs vote against it. And that discounts the possibility of some Liberals crossing the floor to oppose repealing the carbon price too.

    Good night Irene. Bye-bye Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Bye-bye Greens.

    Bye-bye Labor.

    And good riddance.

    2015 is still years away.

    Sorry, but your scenario is based on a complete misunderstanding of Australia’s system of government.

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Adam Smith the incompetent’s apologist says:

    “an election that doesn’t need to be held until November, 2013.”

    Could somebody tell him please?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    No, Adam.

    Whitlam clearly tried to hide the extent of his leftism. This was made clear in an SMH interview he gave after his second catastrophic rejection by the electorate. I remember only too well the war he had with the leaders of the Victorian left whom he saw as being an impediment to the ALP gaining power. Again, not because he didn’t believe the same stuff but he knew damn well that the electorate wouldn’t stomach it. He was disingenuous in the extreme.

    Um, aren’t you forgetting that Whitlam won the 1972 and 1974 elections?

    That has nothing to do with what I posted.

    The people had tired of the accident prone McMahon government, Adam. Not to mention that the Coalition had been in power for 23 years. The 1974 election left Whitlam with a reduced House majority. Dont’ know what your point was there but you clearly chose to ignore the two consecutive floggings that the people gave Whitlam and his party.

    Dear, oh dear, At this time 2 years ago the Turnbull was the Coalition leader. They were bitterly divided both between Libs and Nats and within the Nats on the issue of climate change. Yet the Coalition went very close to winning the 2010 election.

    You really are flailing about here.

    The Coalition’s opinion poll ratings were in the toilet with Turnbull as leader. They were facing a beating and that’s why they ditched him, narrow though Abbott’s win was. Have you forgotten the reams of rubbish written by the political pundits that the Coalition would fade into irrelevance if they didn’t vote for the ETS? You might have but others haven’t.

    That response had nothing to do with “Richo’s” assessment of his own party

    By the way, the use of terms such as “Dear oh dear”, “Umm..”, “Err..” does not automatically confer intellectual superiority upon the user. You really should desist in such usage.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Adam Smith the incompetent’s apologist says:

    “an election that doesn’t need to be held until November, 2013.”

    Could somebody tell him please?

    What I wrote is true. My references are the Australian constitution and the electoral act, but I realise many here think that the Governor General should just ignore both of those things and make up her own rules.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Whitlam clearly tried to hide the extent of his leftism. This was made clear in an SMH interview he gave after his second catastrophic rejection by the electorate.

    WTF are you talking about? Whitlam went to the 1972 election with the most ambitious policy platform ever proposed. It included things like a Trade Practices Act, no fault divorce, ending our involvement in the Vietnam war, recognising the People’s Republic of China, federal involvement in city planning, ending conscription, repealing the Immigration Restriction Act (the White Australia policy), a family court system, abolishing university fees, universal health care, introducing colour TV and FM radio.

    Oh, and guess what, the only thing the Fraser government changed was getting rid of Medibank, which Labor brought back as Medicare in 1984, and we still have it to this day. The Fraser government kept spending at the same levels Whitlam left them at, which was about a 4% of GDP increase. Of course Coalition sympathers don’t like to mention that Whitliam’s increase to spending has basically gone unchanged for 35 years.

    I remember only too well the war he had with the leaders of the Victorian left whom he saw as being an impediment to the ALP gaining power. Again, not because he didn’t believe the same stuff but he knew damn well that the electorate wouldn’t stomach it. He was disingenuous in the extreme.

    Get over yourself mate. Whitlam lost 3 elections, but he also won 2.

    The problem with your type is that you just can’t accept that sometimes Labor actually wins elections because the majority of voters think the alternative is a worse option. You should grow up and accept that sometimes the majority of voters don’t agree with you.

    The 1974 election left Whitlam with a reduced House majority. Dont’ know what your point was there but you clearly chose to ignore the two consecutive floggings that the people gave Whitlam and his party.

    My point was that Whitlam won 2 elections. Should I remind you that the conservatives got a flogging in 1943?

    By the way, the use of terms such as “Dear oh dear”, “Umm..”, “Err..” does not automatically confer intellectual superiority upon the user. You really should desist in such usage.

    Wow, looks like you have an inferiority complex! Grow up mate, debate like an adult or go somewhere else.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Once again, Adam.

    So you deny that Whitlam received two floggings at elections and that one of these was at a double dissolution.

    So you deny that Graham Richardson said what he said just recently. After which, you sought to turn the discussion into something else.

    It was you, you know, who first made the comment that it was next to impossible for a major party to win a Senate majority in a DD election. I merely stated recent history to the contrary and you can’t hack it. You seek to deny history and embark on a campaign of abuse with irrelevant canards thrown in.

    Pathetic little “know-all”.

    You really have an anger problem when shown to be in error. Better go deal with it. Preferably not here though.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    o you deny that Whitlam received two floggings at elections

    Well gee, I only wrote:

    Whitlam lost 3 elections, but he also won 2.

    How someone can construe that has me saying Whitlam never lost an election, I have no idea.

    …and that one of these was at a double dissolution.

    And he also WON a Double Dissolution election in 1974!

    So you deny that Graham Richardson said what he said just recently.

    I didn’t deny anything Richardson said at all, I simply pointed out that the LAST election showed us that picking the winner, let alone the result, of an election 2 years out is a very risky thing to do.

    It was you, you know, who first made the comment that it was next to impossible for a major party to win a Senate majority in a DD election.

    Yes, and I stand by that comment. It would require a party or coalition to get nearly 49% of the Senate vote, which won’t happen.

    I merely stated recent history to the contrary and you can’t hack it.

    Sorry, but 1975 isn’t exactly recent history. More to the point, Australian politics has changed a lot since then, there are now popular independents and minor parties such as the Greens.

    You seek to deny history and embark on a campaign of abuse with irrelevant canards thrown in.

    Deny history? Is there need to revert to such hyperbole?

    If you want to talk about abuse, what about post #80 where I was called a “GETUP traitor”?

    It seems your side can dish it, but can’t take it.

    You really have an anger problem when shown to be in error. Better go deal with it. Preferably not here though.

    Um, hello! Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to complain about abuse, before in the very next sentence asserting that someone has an anger problem?

    Stick to the issues mate, instead of attacking the person.

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Adam Smith @ 89 asserts:

    “What I wrote is true”

    “…an election that doesn’t need to be held until November, 2013.”

    “My references are the Australian constitution and the electoral act.”

    The Act has no way of knowing when we need an election. Nor does the Constitution.

    It stipulates the timing by which we must have one.

    Need? Have??

    We need one now to get rid of this incompetent economically illiterate rabble who have an advanced case of the NSW Labor disease.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    We need one now to get rid of this incompetent economically illiterate rabble who have an advanced case of the NSW Labor disease.

    Well, you distinguished between NEED and HAVE, but there’s another distinction to make between WILL and WON”T.

    We WON’T be having an election this year or next year, but we WILL have one in 2013.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Right, so because 1975 is beyond your ability to absorb history, you ignore it. Which seems to be the way you conduct yourself in general.. Slither and slide and attempt to divert the topic to something you think you can manage.

    You have an opinion on everything but don’t have anyhing but your opinions to back you up. I think you’ll be talking to yourself here very shortly. But I suppose with your attitude you do plenty of that anyway.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Right, so because 1975 is beyond your ability to absorb history, you ignore it. Which seems to be the way you conduct yourself in general..

    I didn’t ignore 1975 at all. Of course you haven’t bothered to say how the current circumstances are the same or even similar in anyway.

    You really think the G.G. is about to Gillard?

    You have an opinion on everything but don’t have anyhing but your opinions to back you up. I think you’ll be talking to yourself here very shortly. But I suppose with your attitude you do plenty of that anyway.

    Instead of writing posts full of personal abuse, why not stick to debating the issues?

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith @85 – I have already admitted I am a neophyte when it comes to the Australian Government. You refuse to admit you are just plain ignorant. Dancing and weaving around the truth does not prove your point. Your words clearly showed you are wrong. Why can’t you be a man and admit it? There is no shame in ignorance, unless you refuse to learn. Then that is just stupidity. So why are you doubling down on stupid?

    You said “no way” and then said ‘remotely possible’. The 2 are not the same and are contradictory. You are wrong. Man up and admit it.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Adam Smith @85 – I have already admitted I am a neophyte when it comes to the Australian Government. You refuse to admit you are just plain ignorant. Dancing and weaving around the truth does not prove your point. Your words clearly showed you are wrong. Why can’t you be a man and admit it? There is no shame in ignorance, unless you refuse to learn. Then that is just stupidity. So why are you doubling down on stupid?

    WHAT!? All of this from the person who couldn’t admit that he had no idea that Australian Senate elections are staggered!

    UNBELIEVABLE!

    You said “no way” and then said ‘remotely possible’. The 2 are not the same and are contradictory. You are wrong. Man up and admit it.

    I stand by my comments that
    1) The ETS could only be repealed by early 2015 at the earliest

    2) The ETS won’t ever be repealed, because:
    a) by 2015 the ETS won’t be an important political issue, people will just move on with their lives
    b) repealing the ETS would cost the Commonwealth billions of dollars, which could only be found by increasing income taxes and / or cutting family payments and pensions
    c) the Coalition has announced that it won’t be compensating power generators for the cost of the permits they buy, which means that even under a Coalition government, electricity generation costs WILL increase to cover the $500 million permit cost, see here:
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/pollution-permits-out-if-we-get-in-coalition-20110817-1iyas.html#ixzz1VKUt5bWw

    So in summary, once the ETS is passed, it will be the law of the land forever, so everyone should just get used to it.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Another great story about the convoy:
    vchttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/protest-convoy-lacks-confidence-20110820-1j43k.html

    00

  • #
  • #
    Adam Smith

    Interesting article by Antony Green:

    Calls for a Double Dissolution are Constitutionally Impossible

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/08/calls-for-a-double-dissolution-are-just-ridiculous.html

    00

  • #
    jim

    There were at least 2 DENTISTS at the rally on Tuesday- just think how much WE forewent in fees! Good news though, Sydney’s Eastern suburbs should be starting up a new Realist group soon.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith:
    August 20th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
    WHAT!? All of this from the person who couldn’t admit that he had no idea that Australian Senate elections are staggered!

    UNBELIEVABLE!

    You are unbelievable. I never made a statement about the senate elections. How can you even think to know what I do or do not understand? Clearly you are trying to again change the subject to a strawman and not admit you are wrong. Now man up and admit you were wrong. listing a bunch of excuses does not serve your purpose. Everyone can see you are just flat out wrong.

    Be a man, not a coward! Admit you were wrong. It will do your soul good.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    How can you even think to know what I do or do not understand? Clearly you are trying to again change the subject to a strawman and not admit you are wrong.

    Yes, that’s pretty much his entire debating style… and he expects to be treated with politeness and respect when he shows neither of those qualities himself.

    Tried to call me a liar, then when I pointed out his own selection of evidence actually said the exact opposite to what he thought it said, and he just ignored it and kept barging right on. Any normal person would feel awkward or have some small sense of shame. Ahh well, I suppose most people reading this have completely switched off by the time they get this far, so the value of identifying his howlers has diminished.

    Be a man, not a coward! Admit you were wrong. It will do your soul good.

    It’s kind of the new normal now… never admit a mistake, push forward at all costs, regardless of the folly.

    Adam Smith is not the only one I’ve seen doing it, and I guess it’s a kind of brinkmanship, proving you can out crazy everyone else and you just don’t care. Like playing “chicken” but with facts. All part of the new paradigm of information warfare I suppose, but rational readers will rapidly identify a rational argument so I wonder what it the point. Oh well, no doubt he will give the game away before too long.

    00

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Personal attacks are rather dull.

    Adam on the other hand has hopefully provided many here with an unaccustomed glimpse of reality.

    2 years ago, the Libs were completely and utterly unelectable.

    Now the boot’s on the other foot. Labor stinks to high heaven.

    2 years from now, where will we all be at?
    It largely depends on the economy, especially the fate of the manufacturing sector, and whether the ALP manages to grow a brain (and some balls) on the issue of illegal immigrants landing on Christmas Island and taking advantage of our broken system of dealing with political asylum claims.

    We would never have had the last two ALP governments in the first place if the Liberal Party wasn’t so dysfunctional as to allow Abbott anywhere near the reins of power. He has never had a real job in his life and is essentially an over-grown uni-student-bludger with no useful ideas. Getting rid of him would have given us a competent Liberal government instead of the current mess.

    Don’t forget – it was Tony Abbott who stuck the knife in on Pauline Hansen and had her thrown in gaol. *That* was a serious attack against democracy, worse than anything that happened in 1975, although the lefty media are happy to ignore it, and the rest of the media will happily forget about it.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Craig Thomas #105

    Adam on the other hand has hopefully provided many here with an unaccustomed glimpse of reality.

    Surely you jest!

    We have noted that Adam Smith considers himself omniscient and infallible.

    However, not long back your favourite commenter was spouting forth about how potential Double Dissolution “trigger” bills could be shuffled off to Senate committees for endless discussion thus frustrating the “trigger” process..

    From Section 57 of the Constitution:
    If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

    Note “…and the Senate rejects OR fails to pass it”.

    Is it seriously being suggested that the founders failed to anticipate that a hostile Senate might seek to capriciously delay passage of a bill rather than reject it outright?

    On the Craig Thomson matter, Smith also tried to convey that a judge had to actually sentence a member of parliament when S.44 of the constitution clearly states something different.

    Smith has suggested that minor parties will always benefit from the lower Senate quota in a DD election which is not always the case as 1975 amply demonstrated.

    Even when shown to be demonstrably wrong, he cannot muster the good character to admit it. Typically, he launches into a prolix rant “full of sound and fury signifying nothing” when challenged. Too much time spent at ALP/GetUp meetings, one suspects.

    There is an old Confucian proverb in four parts. The third part reads thus:
    “He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him”.
    Describes “smithy” to a tee.

    On the last point you are correct and that is the reason why Abbott or the Libs will not get my vote.

    00