If Julie Gillard would stop dictating policies i.e. Climate tax to voters and give them a voice to vote as a democratic country, perhaps we'd all start listening to her again. Julie, the only reason you're PM is because of minority parties - Greens & Independents vote you the job and now Bob Brown is deputy PM!
2
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 03:59
greybeard
Terri, The Greens hold one seat in the lower house. They could not deliver government to the Labor Party. Government was decided by the country independents and Andrew Wilkie as well as Adam Bandt.
I do not know all of the reasons why they decided as they did, but dislike of Tony Abbott, a dislike shared with most Australians, must have been a factor. Another factor was likely to have been investment in regional infrastructure, including the NBN. Andrew Wilkie is on record as saying that he found the offers of the Labor party to be more responsible.
And then there is the realisation that climate change is real and that we have to get real about it. Julia Gillard's pre-election statement about a carbon tax was unpardonable. If her current circumstances as a minority government have forced her to admit her mistake, then that is a good thing and one reason why minority government may be a very good thing for the country.
3
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 04:09
Old Fella
Greybeard might like the "carbon tax" idea (by the bye, does Gillard and her followers know thye difference between C [carbon] and CO2 [carbon dioxide]?) but I still do not see how a tax is supposed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions - unless the tax makes electricity and petroleum significantly more expensive and thereby discourages use of both. I would like to see Gillard and her "mentor" Brown come out openly and say what we have to do without (e.g. airconditioning, heaters, hot water and private vehicles).
Yes, the Greens only hold one seat in the Lower House, but they will soon have control of the Senate and it beggars belief that Gillard would not have to pander to Brown and the Greens to get her legislation through the Senate.
4
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 04:26
Bush Bunny
The CRC has had its funding cut, and 42 students and academics etc, will be out of work at UNE. Maybe that is the price Armidale has paid for allowing seven 'lucky' residences to be connected to NBN. Yes Seven only! Also other depts and schools at UNE also had funding cuts or academics put on half time.
Big Brother is with us. Well is that surprising with our
PM and Treasurer members of the Australian Fabian Society.
5
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 04:32
Bush bunny
Another point. Those TV adjusters to digital. I rang Dick
Smith who told me there was no problem installing them.
All you do is what you do connecting a DVD! But have you seen the programs available on those extra channels? Very
uninspiring to me anyway. Alright I'll take my handout
thanks PM but I would rather the money went towards paying
my increased electricity costs. And I am sure other pensioners would agree also.
6
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 04:47
greybeard
The so-called tax is in reality the first part of a new carbon trading system. The initial price will be fixed, and that is why it is being called a tax, even though it is not technically a tax.
Why will it make a difference? Because industrial users of carbon based fuels will want to minimise their costs and thus, may, choose other means of energy production, perhaps even subsidised by the new revenue.
The idea was tried out with Sulphur Dioxide emissions, particularly in the northern hemsiphere, and was apparently successful in reducing acid rain. It is beloved by economists as a "market based" solution. Personally, I would prefer a straight tax as being much simpler and easier-to-understand.
Ideally, the price for everyone would go up, and the revenue collected would then be spent on a variety of things including increasing pensions and lowering other taxes. Politically that seems to be unacceptable, for now. Next time we have another extreme drought, or another "one-in-a-hundred-year" flood, or extreme cyclone, people might begin to change their minds.
As to what we do without, that is a matter of individual choice. That is meant to be the supreme advantage of a "market-based" system. For myself, I have chosen not to own a car for the last decade.
Yes, the Green's will hold the balance of power in the senate. This does NOT equate to control. The Green's can only ever block legislation with the help of the Liberal party. Given Tony Abbot's record, I imagine any legislation put to the senate will be opposed by the Liberal Party, and thus they hand power to the Greens.
I shall try to resist the temptation to add further comments, as I dont wish to be caught up in a never ending slanging match.
7
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 05:37
Believer
I am amazed that so many people do not seem to understand how the carbon tax is meant to work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It works like this Old Fella. Products that generate carbon dioxide during the production process, like electricity produced in coal fired power stations, will incur the tax, thus forcing up the price of electricity to a level that will allow solar, geothermal wind and even gas in the short term, generated electricity to become competitive. That is the aim. The aim is not to force people like you and me to use less electricity. To that end the Government has indicated that it will use a significant part of the revenue from the Carbon Tax to compensate low income consumers to the extent that even with the increased prices we will be slightly better off. The idea that the aim of the tax is to reduce consumption and turn off our heaters and air conditioners is a furphy. So is the Opposition's argument that if you give the tax money back to the consumer's and they keep using say electricity at the same rate, nothing has been achieved. They well know that the aim is to transfer production to cleaner technologies.
8
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 06:06
cami
I feel that the problem with Labor is that they have too many rods in the fire at the same time. But I have a strong feeling that once they get a few things sorted out with more details Abbotts negative approach will se him going back in the polls. Turnbull is a better option.
9
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 12:28
Ozziejack
This is another example of Labor having lost the plot (or the vision, in this case). It is trying to keep everyone somewhat happy but it is mired in spin and jumping at shadows. From what I have seen the "reform" of the party has been hijacked by the party machine. It seems the party will do anything to stay in power. Some say Labor is past its use-by date and a failure to radically reform and listen to its members again is going to confirm that. Perhaps it is time for a new party. A party that has a vision for Australia beyond the next focus group. A party that speaks with honesty and not spin. A party democratically focussed on its members and the long term good of Australia. If I was a shopkeeper and started losing business to other shops I could either badmouth the other shops or I could see what they are selling and what they are doing to win customers and then do the same or better to win my customers back. Why can't Labor use this strategy?
10
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 14:08
Mem
Labor is doing badly in the polls and the press, and on radio.
Best you all start thinking for yourselves.
Malcolm Turnbull is not popular in his own party - thus will not have great success, in spite of his intelligence.
The independendents chose Labor because they knew they would be promised the world and get nothing from the Libs, at least the Labor party have to give them what they promised.
For myself, I don't mind the Greens have a say in what happens - most countries have a number of parties deciding how a parliament works.
Just get used to it.
11
Friday, 27 May 2011 00:38
Paul Parker
Doubt new party will help improve things.
Problem is so many politicians seeking to exercise two separate powers - legislative and executive, at same time.
Petty political power games to destroy our principals of the separation of powers.
History demonstrates requirement for these powers/authorities to be divided between three separate authorities - Legislators, Executives, and Judiciary.
Solution to this problem awaits us - elect our Governor-General !
Australia's Constitution was prepared for this to happen - when Australians were ready.
We are ready !
Popular election of our Governor-General is a simple act of Parliament.
IF one house passes whilst other rejects, then determine by a vote per Constitution s.128.
Clearly majority of Australians wish to elect their Governor-General.
Australia's popularly elected Governor-General can govern.
Australia's Constitution requires our Governor-General to select their Ministers from members of either House of Parliament.
Australia's Constitution is owned and subject to amendment by the People, not by Parliament.
.
12
Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:38
Disillusioned
Paul Parker's comments smack of republicanism when HE wants to have the Governor-General directly elected. Perhaps he might also want to go the whole hog and revise the title of our country from the 'Commonwealth of Australia' to the 'Democratic People's Fundamentalist Republic of Australia'! That might just satisfy Mr Parker's selfish extremist vision of this country!
I do not know all of the reasons why they decided as they did, but dislike of Tony Abbott, a dislike shared with most Australians, must have been a factor. Another factor was likely to have been investment in regional infrastructure, including the NBN. Andrew Wilkie is on record as saying that he found the offers of the Labor party to be more responsible.
And then there is the realisation that climate change is real and that we have to get real about it. Julia Gillard's pre-election statement about a carbon tax was unpardonable. If her current circumstances as a minority government have forced her to admit her mistake, then that is a good thing and one reason why minority government may be a very good thing for the country.
Yes, the Greens only hold one seat in the Lower House, but they will soon have control of the Senate and it beggars belief that Gillard would not have to pander to Brown and the Greens to get her legislation through the Senate.
Big Brother is with us. Well is that surprising with our
PM and Treasurer members of the Australian Fabian Society.
Smith who told me there was no problem installing them.
All you do is what you do connecting a DVD! But have you seen the programs available on those extra channels? Very
uninspiring to me anyway. Alright I'll take my handout
thanks PM but I would rather the money went towards paying
my increased electricity costs. And I am sure other pensioners would agree also.
Why will it make a difference? Because industrial users of carbon based fuels will want to minimise their costs and thus, may, choose other means of energy production, perhaps even subsidised by the new revenue.
The idea was tried out with Sulphur Dioxide emissions, particularly in the northern hemsiphere, and was apparently successful in reducing acid rain. It is beloved by economists as a "market based" solution. Personally, I would prefer a straight tax as being much simpler and easier-to-understand.
Ideally, the price for everyone would go up, and the revenue collected would then be spent on a variety of things including increasing pensions and lowering other taxes. Politically that seems to be unacceptable, for now. Next time we have another extreme drought, or another "one-in-a-hundred-year" flood, or extreme cyclone, people might begin to change their minds.
As to what we do without, that is a matter of individual choice. That is meant to be the supreme advantage of a "market-based" system. For myself, I have chosen not to own a car for the last decade.
Yes, the Green's will hold the balance of power in the senate. This does NOT equate to control. The Green's can only ever block legislation with the help of the Liberal party. Given Tony Abbot's record, I imagine any legislation put to the senate will be opposed by the Liberal Party, and thus they hand power to the Greens.
I shall try to resist the temptation to add further comments, as I dont wish to be caught up in a never ending slanging match.
Best you all start thinking for yourselves.
Malcolm Turnbull is not popular in his own party - thus will not have great success, in spite of his intelligence.
The independendents chose Labor because they knew they would be promised the world and get nothing from the Libs, at least the Labor party have to give them what they promised.
For myself, I don't mind the Greens have a say in what happens - most countries have a number of parties deciding how a parliament works.
Just get used to it.
Problem is so many politicians seeking to exercise two separate powers - legislative and executive, at same time.
Petty political power games to destroy our principals of the separation of powers.
History demonstrates requirement for these powers/authorities to be divided between three separate authorities - Legislators, Executives, and Judiciary.
Solution to this problem awaits us - elect our Governor-General !
Australia's Constitution was prepared for this to happen - when Australians were ready.
We are ready !
Popular election of our Governor-General is a simple act of Parliament.
IF one house passes whilst other rejects, then determine by a vote per Constitution s.128.
Clearly majority of Australians wish to elect their Governor-General.
Australia's popularly elected Governor-General can govern.
Australia's Constitution requires our Governor-General to select their Ministers from members of either House of Parliament.
Australia's Constitution is owned and subject to amendment by the People, not by Parliament.
.