Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Great article here...

Correctly explains that Labor is spending tax payer money to create so called 'evidence' that suits their own intentions...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/truth-is-that-garnaut-is-partisan/story-e6frgd0x-1226075912763

[redandblack]

Clarrie, quoting The Australian doesn't add anything to this.

Quoting Greg Sheridan is even worse.

The Australian has run a virulent and dishonest anti-climate change action campaign for a fair while now. No-one takes them seriously any more on this issue (or any others).

[Sojourner]

Caught something on the news about Rob Oakshitt not wanting to give the all clear to the 12mil advertising for the Carbon Tax because it has not been finalised as yet, seems a reasonable point if its true.

[Gozu]

The Australian has run a virulent and dishonest anti-climate change action campaign for a fair while now. No-one takes them seriously any more on this issue (or any others).

Not true, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association saw fit to award The Australian's Editor Chris Mitchell for “leading the newspaper’s coverage of climate change policy"

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/05/and ... nge-award/

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Clarrie, quoting The Australian doesn't add anything to this.

Quoting Greg Sheridan is even worse.

The Australian has run a virulent and dishonest anti-climate change action campaign for a fair while now. No-one takes them seriously any more on this issue (or any others).

But we should trust self interested individuals like Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut...

[redandblack]

Instead of Greg Sheridan

Yes.

[redandblack]

Great article here...

Correctly explains that Labor is spending tax payer money to create so called 'evidence' that suits their own intentions...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/truth-is-that-garnaut-is-partisan/story-e6frgd0x-1226075912763

Clarrie, to back up what I'm saying, here's a point of view from an English paper, The Guardian, about The Australian.

(Great article here...)

Second, too many media outlets have failed in their duty to scrutinise self-proclaimed climate "sceptics", thus providing a platform to deniers who have no credibility elsewhere. For example, Lord Christopher Monckton, the Deputy Leader of UKIP, is not taken seriously by the UK press. During Mr. Monckton's last visit to Australia, by contrast, the local Newscorp media hailed him as providing "science" and posing "fact-based" questions. This adulation is no isolated case: The country's only national broadsheet has become cartoonish in its serial misrepresentations of science and scientists.

[redandblack]

You might also enjoy this one, CC

http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/201 ... ch-up.html

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Mildly humorous...

Better than the Crikey rubbish Gozu posts...

[BenchedEagle]

Great article here...

Correctly explains that Labor is spending tax payer money to create so called 'evidence' that suits their own intentions...

[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/truth-is-that-garnaut-is-partisan/story-e6frgd0x-1226075912763[/url]

These two can not go together, An Oxymoron if you will

[redandblack]

So Tony wants a plebiscite on the carbon tax so that Australians can have their say.

But if they vote yes, he says he won't take any notice

As they say, longest dummy spit in Australian political history.

[Psyber]

I'm with Nick Xenophon on this one - put up a complete thought out plan and seek a mandate for it.
But of course the Greens and ALP don't want to do that.
They want to be free to impose whatever they agree on between themselves and change it on the run for political expedience.

[redandblack]

Welcome back, Psyber.

$80 million dollars on a glorified opinion poll.

We have elections to decide who governs, not opinion polls.

Tony Abbott has tried one stunt too many here, especially when he wants the Government to take notice of the people, but he says he'll ignore it if it goes against him

We didn't get a chance to have a plebiscite when WorkChoices was introduced, despite it not being mentioned before the election.

[Psyber]

Welcome back, Psyber.
$80 million dollars on a glorified opinion poll.
We have elections to decide who governs, not opinion polls.
Tony Abbott has tried one stunt too many here, especially when he wants the Government to take notice of the people, but he says he'll ignore it if it goes against him
We didn't get a chance to have a plebiscite when WorkChoices was introduced, despite it not being mentioned before the election.

We had an election but it didn't produce a government with a clear mandate, and certainly not one with a mandate for actions against its own declared pre-election policy.
Therefore a referendum would be reasonable.
After all, a government is there to work for the people, not to say, "Now don't you worry about that we'll tell you what is good for you when we work it out with our mates in another party!"

I agree that perhaps we should have had one for WorkChoices too - I thought it was poor policy and wrote to Liberal MPs about that..
Did you make that much effort about it?

[redandblack]

No mate, I don't get as involved as you.

Are you suggesting that Gillard is the first politician to 'break' an election promise?

Are you suggesting we have a plebiscite every time a promise is 'broken'?

[Psyber]

No mate, I don't get as involved as you.
Are you suggesting that Gillard is the first politician to 'break' an election promise?
Are you suggesting we have a plebiscite every time a promise is 'broken'?

1. No. Far too many do. I'd require the leader do the honourable thing and step down though.
That would keep them more honest, there being at least a personal penalty for deceit.

2. For major and very expensive policy decisions, that significantly diverge from declared policies, yes.
It would be a small cost compared with the amount involved - that's one thing I do agree with Abbott about.

[fish]

So Tony wants a plebiscite on the carbon tax so that Australians can have their say.

But if they vote yes, he says he won't take any notice

As they say, longest dummy spit in Australian political history.

Tony's latest plan has been scuttled by retiring Senator Steve Fielding.

[dedja]

So Tony wants a plebiscite on the carbon tax so that Australians can have their say.

But if they vote yes, he says he won't take any notice

As they say, longest dummy spit in Australian political history.

Poor old Mad Monk just doesn't get it.

The indepependents didn't back the coaltion into government because he wanted to call an early election.

No surprise with his latest stunt ... didn't he get the Liberal leadership the same way?

[Psyber]

So Tony wants a plebiscite on the carbon tax so that Australians can have their say.
But if they vote yes, he says he won't take any notice
As they say, longest dummy spit in Australian political history.

Poor old Mad Monk just doesn't get it.
The independents didn't back the coalition into government because he wanted to call an early election.
No surprise with his latest stunt ... didn't he get the Liberal leadership the same way?

You're right in your analysis dedja.
My position in favour of a vote on the Carbon tax is along Nick Xenophon's line, not supporting Tony Abbot.
I'd be happier if he were not the Lib leader, and have just binned an invitation to a function to meet him..

[redandblack]

Psyber, if you favour this plebiscite, what are your comments about Tony Abbott insisting the Govt 'abides by the will of the people', but says he won't change his policy if the vote went against him

a/ Circumstances have changed

b/ DIfferent rules for Tony Abbott

c/ He's just dumb?

Tony said he would introduce it into the HOR at 10 o'clock on Monday morning. The HOR timetable made it clear that wasn't possible and he still hasn't introduced it. Is he

a/ Circumstances have change

b/ It was a political stunt

c/ He's just dumb?

Given the above, why would you support a 'glorified opinion poll' (to quote Sen. Fielding) that will cost about $80 million, the result of which will be ignored by the Federal Opposition?