Now THAT would be interesting. Has it happened before? Here or in the UK?

Jack the Ripper did a lot of it.

I'm still tipping a Rudd Turnbull race.

Julie Bishop looks quietly poised to me.....we shall see.

What about Smiffy?

Well respected.

Not sure about her intellectual smartness, although she was elegantly dressed and behaved - unusual qualities for a politican - when I met her.

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.

True, but what are you going to do?

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.

As the BBC correspondent points out, the entire Australian political setup is second rate and broken. None of them are really very good, and the quality of the decision making is poor and ill informed. They just aren't very good at the game of politics, let alone strategy.

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.

Don't you mean ChittyChittyBangBang?

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.

yes, but the short term implcations of Australian pricing will be felt, and indeed passed on directly to the consumers, prior to the kinks of penalisation being ironed out.

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.


I dont normally enjoy Nick Bryants blog. I usually dont agree with him, but I did find that to be absolutely spot on.

ha! actually I would go with either the clown from under the bed in Poltergeist:



or chucky

So a case of replace a failure with a failure who was originally forced out to be replaced by the failure who the failure would be replacing?

I can't see how the proposed carbon tax will help the environment, mainly because the compensation offered negates it. The carbon tax also benefits some of the population and some states, but penalises others. An example is that more people in WA earn above the cut-off income levels, so will not only get no compensation, but will actually be worse off. Another example has recently surfaced, where the coal-fired power stations in WA will not get any of the compensation available to other states and may be forced to close down, affecting the power supply. Yet another link to a radio interview for you http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-pert...826-1jdca.html.

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.