Zen10

Yes indeed - on both sides I think!

Zen10

He was, and echoing what Broad Shoulders said they should dump him if they want to get a strong majority in 2013. Without that Labor will make reversing the CT very hard work.

DadAgain

0% likelihood.

Yeah of course they'll tweak it so they can "say" its been repealed. But in reality every man and his dog knows that it makes no sense whatsoever to cancel it.

The best bet would be that an LNP government would simply accelerate the timetable to an emission trading scheme by a few months - thus enabling them to say they've ended the carbon 'tax' - without actually changing anything significant whatsoever since that has been a core part of the plan since day 1.

Of course there is the worry that the LNP will set the number of permits in a trading scheme way too high thus rendering the scheme pointless. IN which case they'll have to raise revenue through HUGE tax increases to pay for the direct action plan to reduce emissions. That seems more likely than anything to plunge us into deep recession (at which point TA would no doubt jump up and down and say "I told you so - it was the carbon tax!")

Zen10

Thanks to Julia Gillard, the currency of truth has been so debased in Australian federal politics "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead", that we now have no reason to believe Abbott or anyone else, but he has stated clearly they are committed to removing it as their "first priority".

DadAgain

I *like* the fact that we finally have at least one politician who's prepared to stand up stand up and say that they have re-assessed the available evidence, considered the competing interests and the current context and consider that what seemed the best idea before no longer seems like the best course of action. I wish we had more people in public office who had the balls to change their minds based on changing circumstances from time to time. Unfortunately it seems the media are increasingly unlikely to let this happen.

I WANT my politicians to be pragmatic and work the system to get what they believe are the best outcomes for the country.

I dont in any way see JGs behaviour on this issue as contrary. Prior to the election she favoured a system of pricing carbon via an ETS. Post-election it became clear the best way of getting that outcome was to go via a Carbon Tax. I dont see that as a lie - merely a change of circumstances and a shift to ensure continuing on the same ultimate path.

Compare that to :"Why not just have a simple Carbon Tax" and "We will repeal the Carbon Tax" - which are not only contrary statements - but also represent a philosophical u-turn.

Beoz

The environmental issues surrounding carbon have been around for decades. It's a little rich to say one thing one year and back flip it the following.

If the carbon content had so drastically risen between the time she said "no carbon tax" to the time she said "yay carbon tax" I'd understand, but clearly this was not an environmental motive.

DadAgain

Yeah the 'environment' that changed wasnt the scientific/climate one - but the political environment. Even blind freddy could see that.

Zen10

You have to be charitable and believe she had a change of philosophy rather than simply deceiving the voters. Given her form I would say it's a little too much charity than I could afford. When she knifed Rudd I went off her straight away.

DadAgain

I don't believe she had a change in philosophy. I believe she responded to changing conditions to maintain a course consistent with her philosophy. It *may* be true to say the infamous statement was ill-advised and should have been, "It is not my intention for there to be a Carbon Tax..." (in which case this whole discussion and line of argument would never need to occur).

But you have to be very cynical indeed (and I usually am) - to believe that she said what she did whilst knowingly planning to implement a tax*. Assuming that this wasn't the case, then surely the question is; What is more important - That a politician never changes their position on any implementation detail, or that they pursue what they believe is the best course of action for the common good?

I really struggle to believe that anyone thinks 'stick-in-the-mud' decisive dogmatism is more important than 'doing the right thing'.




*Of course I'm not sure why I don't believe this, since clearly TA has plenty of statements that seem to be to indicative he is extremely likely to be knowingly deceiving - so why do I implicitly trust the intentions of one side more than the other? Perhaps because those high-level 'intentions' are more in line with my personal beliefs?

knockoff nige

I think you're giving her far too much credit. She may have intended to serve her term without implementing a carbon tax. But it looked like she wouldnt have made it to power without agreeing on it with the Greens. Thats not changing her mind, its using tactics to 'win at all costs'.

Beoz

Well I'm not prepared to pay for carbon. Yes that may sound environmentally unfriendly but its my view and my choice.

To make it worse I listened to some freak that looks and creeps like the the Simpsons, Mr Burns tell me that I was never going to have to pay for carbon whilst she was in power.

You are going to have to work jolly hard to paint a good picture of someone who lies and hurts my back pocket.

I'd like to know why she said that "no carbon tax" will be implemented. Was it a lie to win? Yes. I have no respect for her actions

DadAgain

Actually that isn't your choice at all. The choice is:

A) pay a little under a carbon tax/ ETS scheme as per current government
Or
B) pay many many times more for direct action under an LNP govt.

if lying and hip pocket are your 2 measures then given both party leaders have questionable abilities to predict the future and speak honestly about what they will do, the only differentiator is the hip pocket. In which case a CT ought to be your preferred policy.
Simple logic really......

GarryP

Actually, if you were going to be sensible, your best option would probably be for a ramping up of a tax on brown coal extraction - to the stage where it is uneconomic and stops. You'd probably find that the impact on CO2 emissions would be easier, cheaper, and more direct than waffling around with carbon tax approaches.

moneypenny20

Reminded me of Paxman and Howard but with Leigh appearing intelligent whilst Paxman was just patronising. Abbott is a moron.

GarryP

Paxman seems disgusted by the blatant attempts of politicians to lie.

This is entirely appropriate.