Quite - read this editorial from the West Australian last week http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opi...534/comment/1/.

Because, the Coalition were getting caned in the polls. Because Turnbull was about to support the govt on a policy rather than oppose it for the sake of it. Because, when you can't get any lower in polls and all else fails turn to the man who wil simply oppose anything for the sake of opposition and who, in his own words will "destroy" anything Labor proposes.
Abbott is still only in a job due to Labor's self destructiveness. Had Labor kept Rudd in power, they would have still maintained an organic majority of some sort in the lower house at the last election and Abbott would have been on his way. I really don't think the Coalition ever saw him as a leader in any way. They saw him as a wrecking ball that was designed to destroy the labor lead in the poll. The fact that Labor's knee-jerk reaction at the first sign of the polls not going their way and dumping Rudd is incidental and nothing to do with Abbott actually putting forward any decent political alternative.
In my eyes, Abbott is no different to George W Bush. Suffers severely from foot-in-mouth and has all of the same extreme views and opinions. As long as he is the alternative Gillard will always be a better alternative in my opinion, but then so would any mediocre politician

haha. And you don't think the Coalition is firmly in the pockets of all of those mining companies? Conflict of interest maybe? You think this is unique to Labor?

Really?

How about India, one of the expected largest contributors to carbon polution over the next 2 years?

Or Denmark, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and even our very own GB to some degree

Oh and even one of the states within one of the countries you listed as not having any plans to introduce such a scheme! Colorado anyone?

Sure, they all differ in many ways from our own proposed tax. You could argue Australia is trying to go hard and fast too quickly, but this is due to Australia taking no action in the last 15-20 years under a Howard govt that simply buried its head in the sand and therefore they have a lot of catching up to do.

As for the debate about Labor not having a mandate to implement such a sceme. Well I beg to differ. Labor were elected in 2007 off the back of many policies. One of the top 5 policies were their plans to tackle climate change, something Howard was very belligerent on. This was at the forefront of their election manifesto. I also believe that with the Greens having such a large presence that there also lies the mandate of the Australian people.

By the way Aussietobe, thank you soooooo much for vindicating my theory about Coalition arguments on the carbon tax. Yours promtly fall into the second category I listed.

I understand why people oppose it, it is fear of the unknown, but why don't you try and understand the tax first then show us why it won't work. Pin point areas that will fail and why. Don't just point out the Coalition diretribe sound bites of "no one else is doing it, so why should we"

That sums the whole thing up nicely. There will come a time though, as Margaret Thatcher once said, that you run out of other peoples money.

I thought they only had 5 members? I thought they polled only 10% of the vote?
Yes, they hold the balance of power - but that is not a mandate from the people!

Dear oh dear. It sounds like you've taken the usual Murdoch press propaganda hook line and sinker. The Murdoch press have been on a crusade to destroy the Gillard government since the lead up to the last election. No amount of exageration, intellectual dishonesty and manipulation is too much to force an early election and install that clown Abbott.

Together with the Labor vote it is. The fact that the Greens returned more seats than ever does suggest a mandate to me

The Greens did not get the mandate from the people - they acquired it by default. 10% of the vote does not give you a mandate. If Labour had a clear majority, the Greens would not even get a look in.

I never said the Greens had a mandate. I said the topic had the mandate (ie: Labor 2007 election promise + Greens increased seats & votes in 2010 = mandate for policy on tackling climate change)

Not exactly the same scheme but the Brits do have the Climate Change Levy which was intended to promote green energy generation.

And the polls? Would that suggest a mandate for either the Government, The Greens or the Carbon Tax?

Come on! When have polls ever reflected the outcome of an election? Besides, you watch, the in favour rate will bounce back once there is more education about it and people are sick of hearing all the same fear-mongering for 100th time. Of course it could get worse for the govt if the coalition start debating the details of the tax itself, but somehow I can't see that happening. The Coalition's stance will quickly tire out the Australian people, as their tactics are always so short term focused (ie: how do we win the next poll)

Julia gillard is centrist. She has a long history as a consensus politician often voting to the right on issues. Her traditional background on the student left is dragged out as a political slur in university hour politics by people who hold far more extreme positions than she does without the proven history of moderation that she has.

The same case could be made about Abbott from his university days when he stood outside women's meetings and hurled misogynist comments at the women attending as they left the meeting - but I assume he has changed since then. She may attend Fabian society meetings as traditional on the left similarly to Abbott hosting known right wing nutcases - goes with the territory and can be dragged out when real arguments are missing.

Were you serious that the conservative beholden americans would be leading the world in climate schemes?

I know, I wondered that too. These are the same republicans currently blocking a democrat led scheme to ban incandescent lightbulbs and only allow energy efficiency ones. The reason? Because they believe the govt should not be telling and forcing people what to do. Republican proposal? To recommend to households to only use the energy efficient ones