Gillard should go!

[Q.]

they should make all election promises L-A-W, law

No they shouldn't. Circumstances change.

[Sojourner]

"Bloods for Premiers"

At least that one actually happened R&B - Freo for Premiers could be an interesting claim!

[Hondo]

Julia ended up with a minority government after making promises based on an assumption Labor would be in majority. Had Abbott won the negotiation with the independents I wonder whether we would also have a carbon tax despite his pre election statements.

If the carbon tax ends up being a fizzer in terms of any major impact on the voters lives next year then I think that particular issue will run out of steam.

With big tax cuts to compensate us I suspect most will be hard pressed to even start to work out if they are better or worse off. Does anybody know if they have ended up better or worse off under the GST?

[Jimmy_041]

We ended up worse off Hondo because our State Governments didn't do what they agreed to and eliminate some State taxes.

The Federal Govt should have withheld the GST handouts until they complied

[Hondo]

I agree the State Governments have not abolished all the taxes that they promised so in that sense technically Australian taxpayers should be be worse off since the GST, in theory.

My question is whether the average punter in the street could be sure one way or the other if they are personally worse off under the GST? I reckon no.

So on the carbon tax I think when the tax cuts kick in on 1 July 2012 people will struggle to tell if they are worse off (some of the price increases will be delayed for example) and so I think this whole carbon tax issue will drop off the radar a bit.

That's unless the Libs can still make mileage out of the broken promise by the time of the next election. If people's hip pockets seem unaffected then the "big new tax" becomes a non-issue. Then voters will judge the carbon tax broken promise as no different to the 50,000 other broken election promises that have happened in history.

If, on the other hand, prices sky rocket under the carbon tax and it is headline news every week then that is a different story. I think the rollout of the carbon tax in the 6 months up to December 2012 will be telling.

[tipper]

I agree the State Governments have not abolished all the taxes that they promised so in that sense technically Australian taxpayers should be be worse off since the GST, in theory.

My question is whether the average punter in the street could be sure one way or the other if they are personally worse off under the GST? I reckon no.

So on the carbon tax I think when the tax cuts kick in on 1 July 2012 people will struggle to tell if they are worse off (some of the price increases will be delayed for example) and so I think this whole carbon tax issue will drop off the radar a bit.

That's unless the Libs can still make mileage out of the broken promise by the time of the next election. If people's hip pockets seem unaffected then the "big new tax" becomes a non-issue. Then voters will judge the carbon tax broken promise as no different to the 50,000 other broken election promises that have happened in history.

If, on the other hand, prices sky rocket under the carbon tax and it is headline news every week then that is a different story. I think the rollout of the carbon tax in the 6 months up to December 2012 will be telling.

whilst i dont disagree with you Hondo, i think the Perception that the average punter is worse off is actually more important than the reality. to come to a definite determination as to wether someone is better or worse off after the change (or even "the same") would take a much more indepth analysis than the "average punter" will be likely to do. (i doubt for example that i will go to the lengths to find out if, and how much better/worse off i am after the carbon tax is introduced)

however if they feel they are worse off, then they will be. if they feel they are better off then they will be, at least in their own minds. I have a suspicion that the majority "feeling" will be that they are worse off, judged soley on the fact that every year "bills" go up etc, and that people are cynical.

if that can still be linked to the Carbon tax come election time, it will be a factor, however i believe the populace in general has a very poor memory when it comes to elections. as has been pointed out by others, polititians have a different view of election promises than the general populace does, however come the following election, the "lies" (or whatever we want to term broken election promises) are not at the forefront of any campaign. they may be raised as a side issue, but are not the main thrust. (this may be different with the carbon tax, it is a slightly bigger issue than the majority of broken election promises)

it will be interesting to see once the election campaigns have started wether it is still an issue or not. personally i can see it going wither way, it will either still be a major issue, or it wont be raised at all. (smarter people than me can predict which)

[Hondo]

I think the tax cuts and the immediate uplift in pays from 1 July 2012 will buy off a lot of the heat out of the issue but we'll see. Abbott has built it up as this "huge new tax" and his challenge will be maintaining that perception in people's minds if they don't feel they are actually paying a "huge new tax". Both sides will be jumping on the smallest piece of evidence to prove the point one way or another. It will be a very interesting to follow how it plays out.

[tipper]

definately agree, like i said i dont know enough to predict which way it will go, but it will be very interesting to watch play out. i was just trying to say (obviously in a long winded way...) that i think it will be more about the perception, than the reality. cheers.

[Booney]

My biggest concern with the Carbon Tax (CT) is the impact it will have in the medium to longer term ( 3-5 years ) on the already crippled manufacturing sector of Australia.

Manufacturing has been suffering a slow painful death in this country for some time now and I truly believe this will be the death of it. Not just because of the local political tax implications but the global impact on manufacturing and the strength to strength nature of the Chinese manufacturing sector.

You think everything you buy is made in China now. Give it 5 years and see what we dont get out of the no CT Chinese.

[Q.]

My biggest concern with the Carbon Tax (CT) is the impact it will have in the medium to longer term ( 3-5 years ) on the already crippled manufacturing sector of Australia.

Manufacturing has been suffering a slow painful death in this country for some time now and I truly believe this will be the death of it. Not just because of the local political tax implications but the global impact on manufacturing and the strength to strength nature of the Chinese manufacturing sector.

You think everything you buy is made in China now. Give it 5 years and see what we dont get out of the no CT Chinese.

So, in other words, the inevitable death comes a little quicker.

It will be important to capitalise on manufacturing renewable energy technology and become a leader exporter. Though I have a feeling the Government will be slow to provide the necessary stimulation here.

[Sojourner]

Solar Panels are already flooding in thick and fast from China for much less than what Australian Manufacturers can do them for. Without Tariff protection the Australian manufacturing industry has no chance of competing for the growth market of Environmental products against them. A better option would be simply to invest in the employment of Australians in the Nuclear Power Industry from Mining, enriching through to running and maintaining the plants. Providing real jobs and carbon free electricity as is the case with the other Kyoto nations.

[dedja]

is that you Psyber?

[Gozu]

Aside from the environmental factors nuclear power isn't economically viable.

[Sojourner]

Aside from the environmental factors nuclear power isn't economically viable.

I think its likely to be far more economically viable when compared against other sources of Carbon Free Electricity such as Wind Power of Solar Power in terms of output. Nuclear Power will cut our Carbon Footprint overnight. Is that not the Goal of the Carbon Tax? Maybe the Carbon Tax funds should be then used to fund Nuclear Power instead of buying Carbon Credits as its a far better option to physically cut Carbon Emissions in our nation.

[Booney]

My biggest concern with the Carbon Tax (CT) is the impact it will have in the medium to longer term ( 3-5 years ) on the already crippled manufacturing sector of Australia.

Manufacturing has been suffering a slow painful death in this country for some time now and I truly believe this will be the death of it. Not just because of the local political tax implications but the global impact on manufacturing and the strength to strength nature of the Chinese manufacturing sector.

You think everything you buy is made in China now. Give it 5 years and see what we dont get out of the no CT Chinese.

So, in other words, the inevitable death comes a little quicker.

It will be important to capitalise on manufacturing renewable energy technology and become a leader exporter. Though I have a feeling the Government will be slow to provide the necessary stimulation here.

Renewable energy is not a new industry, many nations from Europe and Asia are already well advanced with manufacturing and exporting of these items. Whilst there are small pockets of solar panel manufacturers in Australia, I would doubt many people with solar on their homes would have Australian made panels*.





*Yes, there are many forms of renewable energy, I only discussed one.

[Psyber]

Aside from the environmental factors nuclear power isn't economically viable.

Look at what Barry Brook from the Uni of Adelaide's Environment Institute says about the relative economics in his answer to Q2 here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/12/11/g ... questions/
Particularly this bit about the economics problems of renewable energy and storing power for use when the renewable systems are not producing enough for base load -

Energy storage (batteries, chemical conversion to hydrogen or ammonia, pumped hydropower, compressed air), even on a small scale, is currently very expensive, and in order to store the truly massive amounts of energy required to keep a city or country going through long stretches of cloudy winter days (yes, these even occur in the desert) or calm nights with little wind and no sun, we would have to ‘overbuild’ our system many times, to allow for  not only delivering  all of our regular power demand, but also  continuing  to do this whilst  charging up the energy stores when it needs to catch up on those low generation periods. This is the case whether or not the system involves hundreds of very large wind or solar ‘farms’, or millions of rooftop-scale PV panels with grid-connected inverters and on-site lead-acid batteries.

[Gozu]

Psyber, Barry Brook is a nuclear power defender/apologist (boy was his face red after Fukushima) and aside from what to do with all the waste the cost of decommissioning alone makes nuclear power unfeasible economically.

[Sojourner]

The best place for Nuclear Waste is in the ground where it came from, its geologically sound and surrounded by material that is already radioactive and dangerous to health for exposure!

On "Collectors" on the ABC they had a couple that collect tinted vintage glassware, they turned out the lights and several pieces actually glowed in the dark due to the radioactive material present. In that concentration its not harmfull, but in concentrations existing under the ground its a different scenario. Better to have a waste area there than under lift wells in Adelaide as is the case currently.

[Mad Mat]

It only seems unfeasible to those against it. If nuclear power if so unfeasible why do many of the worlds developed nations source their base load power from nuclear energy? If both sides of politics are serious about reducing carbon emissions then they need to consider nuclear power, if they don't then they are not acting in the best interests of their constituents or the environment.

Out of interest, how many died as a result of what happened at the Fukushima power plant?

[Gozu]

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its reactors and pledged to close the rest by 2022.[34] The Italians have voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[35] Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors. [36] Japan’s prime minster has called for a dramatic reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[37] Taiwan’s president did the same. Mexico has sidelined construction of 10 reactors in favor of developing natural-gas-fired plants.[38] Belgium is considering phasing out its nuclear plants, perhaps as early as 2015.[36]

China—nuclear power’s largest prospective market—suspended approvals of new reactor construction while conducting a lengthy nuclear-safety review.[39][40] Neighboring India, another potential nuclear boom market, has encountered effective local opposition, growing national wariness about foreign nuclear reactors, and a nuclear liability controversy that threatens to prevent new reactor imports. There have been mass protests against the French-backed 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the 2000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The state government of West Bengal state has also refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.[41]

In the United States, new-reactor construction has also suffered—not because of public opposition but because of economics and tougher, yet-to-be-determined, safety regulations. In 2007, U.S. utilities applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 nuclear-power plants before 2020; now, if more than three come online before the end of the decade, it will be a major accomplishment.[36]

France is, per capita, the world’s most nuclear-powered state. Frequently heralded as a nuclear commercial model for the world, today it’s locked in a national debate over a partial nuclear phaseout. President Nicolas Sarkozy is still backing nuclear power, but his Socialist opponent, François Hollande, now well ahead in the polls, has proposed cutting nuclear power’s electricity contribution by more than a third by 2025.[36]

There is little support across the world for building new nuclear reactors, a 2011 poll for the BBC indicates. The global research agency GlobeScan, commissioned by BBC News, polled 23,231 people in 23 countries from July to September 2011, several months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In countries with existing nuclear programmes, people are significantly more opposed than they were in 2005, with only the UK and US bucking the trend. Most believe that boosting energy efficiency and renewable energy can meet their needs.[42]

Just 22% agreed that "nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants". In contrast, 71% thought their country "could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind". Globally, 39% want to continue using existing reactors without building new ones, while 30% would like to shut everything down now.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy