![]() |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by brissybee
(Post 9594524)
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin...............
It's just a matter of time. He's probably got the knife out of his back by now and its going to be a beauty of a boomerang. |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes
(Post 9594530)
Now THAT would be interesting. Has it happened before? Here or in the UK?
|
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes
(Post 9594402)
Further to my above, I think Gillard will hang on and then yes, Labour will be cast out but ONLY if a replacement for Abbott is found AND early enough.
|
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Julie Bishop looks quietly poised to me.....we shall see.
|
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
What about Smiffy?
Well respected. |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes
(Post 9594600)
Julie Bishop looks quietly poised to me.....we shall see.
|
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 9594311)
Made a promise associated with having a majority, and when they didn't, made an accommodation with a party to form a majority in a democratic fashion.
Whilst I'm not anti the carbon tax, as futile a gesture as it is, assuming the real culprits (india, china, america) continue to operate the way thay do, I am completely opposed to her handling of the issue.
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 9594311)
Frankly it would be less of an issue if Tony wasn't a Sword of Damocles - hanging over any sane policies in Australia. Ditch that turd and we can talk about fixing things, otherwise Gillard is much the least worst option.
Tony is just bat shit crazy and completley reactionary, without really offering anything other than emotional reactions to labor policy, ad nauseum. He would seem better suited to running a petrol station or a small bar or something of that scale. Not a country. He did teach Australians the word plebiscite though. Gillard is just a deceitful puppet. She's like the sinister one out of punch and judy. |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by In Exile
(Post 9595416)
just arguing semantics here but the words were ""There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".
Whilst I'm not anti the carbon tax, as futile a gesture as it is, assuming the real culprits (india, china, america) continue to operate the way thay do, I am completely opposed to her handling of the issue. Australia has been increasing its carbon pollution year on year since 1990, whereas others have cut it. Its pretty obvious sensible regulatory means aren't going to happen - so you are left with tax. Now they have screwed up the tax approach as well, giving back what they take so no lesson is learnt, but at least its a start to towards full emission trading. As for the big polluters, the US, China, etc., joining up the emission trading approaches (Europe, Australia, etc.) would enable the hold outs to be dealt with. If you aren't a member, your country's pollution is counted against your exporters' goods as an extra 'carbon trading' levy. That's got to be the aimpoint of the west to fix some of the competition inequalities - and its best to be in there first, setting the rules.
Originally Posted by In Exile
(Post 9595416)
I agree. Having said that, I can't see either of them as political players on the global stage. They both seem to be completely out of their depth. Neither have any gravitas or integrity. Kevin Rudd did, I didnt like him and his clandestine introduction of legistaltion, but personality wise he was more suited to the role.
Tony is just bat shit crazy and completley reactionary, without really offering anything other than emotional reactions to labor policy, ad nauseum. He would seem better suited to running a petrol station or a small bar or something of that scale. Not a country. He did teach Australians the word plebiscite though. Gillard is just a deceitful puppet. She's like the sinister one out of punch and judy. Best solution would be to replace the lot of them as unfit for purpose - but until that point you have to focus on limiting the damage that can be done. Even if Gillard were a deceitful puppet, she is still a much better bet than Tony the Turd. |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by In Exile
(Post 9595416)
just arguing semantics here but the words were ""There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".
Whilst I'm not anti the carbon tax, as futile a gesture as it is, assuming the real culprits (india, china, america) continue to operate the way thay do, I am completely opposed to her handling of the issue. I agree. Having said that, I can't see either of them as political players on the global stage. They both seem to be completely out of their depth. Neither have any gravitas or integrity. Kevin Rudd did, I didnt like him and his clandestine introduction of legistaltion, but personality wise he was more suited to the role. Tony is just bat shit crazy and completley reactionary, without really offering anything other than emotional reactions to labor policy, ad nauseum. He would seem better suited to running a petrol station or a small bar or something of that scale. Not a country. He did teach Australians the word plebiscite though. Gillard is just a deceitful puppet. She's like the sinister one out of punch and judy. http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/...ld-catcher.jpg |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
The sooner we get rid of the useless ginger witch the better, I'm really not keen on her but that's what happens when the electorate is given the choice of dumb or dumber.
|
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 9595514)
That's got to be the aimpoint of the west to fix some of the competition inequalities - and its best to be in there first, setting the rules.
I will have to do some research to back this up, but I think I saw non-punitive fines of around 1 million dollars being issued to companies who pass on the increased cost to their customers directly. On paper, that's exceptionally damaging to smaller companies but probably a drop in the ocean to the larger ones where the cost of not passing on the incurred tax would be much higher. Also if the direct cost of the tax cant be passed on, the increased cost of business by R&D into the carbon issue surely can be (potentially penalty free). In the same way that if an insurer experiences a claim heavy year the premiums are inflated to pass this cost on, and maintain profitability and growth. I'd like to understand what it is quantified as a direct passing on and what the exceptions and loopholesare. As I said, more research required on my part, but I'm sure news.com.au, ACA and TT will be quick to point this out. I fall into the category of being most influenced by the inevitable price hikes. My income is over the threshold of the accompanying tax relief, and I think I may benefit by $3 per year or something like that. Obviously I'm thrilled. :) From am environmental thing it will do nothing on its own, but as a gesture it is definitely a step forward in the right direction. Australia on the global stage, doesnt have the influence to rally the troops around this issue yet. I also dont think it features too heavily on the prime culprits agendas just now. The only reason we're in the global media at the moment was our surprising resilance to the GFC, and all of our lovely shiny minerals which are up for grabs.
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 9595514)
As the BBC correspondent points out, the entire Australian political setup is second rate and broken.
|
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by spartacus
(Post 9595537)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S-7t7l-ruW...oltergeist.jpg or chucky http://www.iconsoffright.com/SHOCK/T...DS_PLAY-35.jpg |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by brissybee
(Post 9594524)
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin...............
It's just a matter of time. He's probably got the knife out of his back by now and its going to be a beauty of a boomerang. |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by In Exile
(Post 9595612)
Also if the direct cost of the tax cant be passed on, the increased cost of business by R&D into the carbon issue surely can be (potentially penalty free). In the same way that if an insurer experiences a claim heavy year the premiums are inflated to pass this cost on, and maintain profitability and growth.
I'd like to understand what it is quantified as a direct passing on and what the exceptions and loopholesare. As I said, more research required on my part, but I'm sure news.com.au, ACA and TT will be quick to point this out. I fall into the category of being most influenced by the inevitable price hikes. My income is over the threshold of the accompanying tax relief, and I think I may benefit by $3 per year or something like that. Obviously I'm thrilled. :) From am environmental thing it will do nothing on its own, but as a gesture it is definitely a step forward in the right direction. Australia on the global stage, doesnt have the influence to rally the troops around this issue yet. I also dont think it features too heavily on the prime culprits agendas just now. |
Re: Gillard's 3rd Strike
Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes
(Post 9594402)
Further to my above, I think Gillard will hang on and then yes, Labour will be cast out but ONLY if a replacement for Abbott is found AND early enough.
Which ever way you slice it or dice it, Labor are gone at the next election (whenever that will be, sooner rather than later IMO), but the next few decisions they make will decide whether they will be wiped out for a generation or just get beaten. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:01 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.