I could never understand that logic though. The Greens were never going to support the LNP or align themselves with them post the 2010 election negotiations. There was no need for the ALP to promise that to get them onboard, unless they thought it was good policy.
Getting rid of the Carbon Tax
- Thread starter Dazz
- Start date
I could never understand that logic though. The Greens were never going to support the LNP or align themselves with them post the 2010 election negotiations. There was no need for the ALP to promise that to get them onboard, unless they thought it was good policy.
True but the Greens may have refused to support them on other important Labor agendas.
Whatever they were?
Agree I think Labor will say in hindsight "it was good idea at the time".
And the Greens may lose power but not votes in 2013. If anything the rusted on green voter will say, see, we did do something when we had the power.
Peter 14.7
Well like both Labor and Liberal there will be rusted on supporters of the Greens. But wouldn't it be fair to argue that a significant proportion of Greens voters aren't rusted on and simply voted for them based on disillusionment with Labor/Liberal? I daresay that these people will vote out the extremist position of the Greens once they see the damage that they have done to both Labor and this country.
Some of you may recall that there was strong public support for an ETS before the GFC hit.
The Gillard Labor leadership team bought into the CT to stop losing votes to the Greens after Rudd's backsliding on the bipartisan-supported ETS.
The Coalition jumped to the opposite direction for similarly cynical electoral reasons.
Opposing the CT 'on principle' in this light is simply laughable.
The Gillard Labor leadership team bought into the CT to stop losing votes to the Greens after Rudd's backsliding on the bipartisan-supported ETS.
The Coalition jumped to the opposite direction for similarly cynical electoral reasons.
Opposing the CT 'on principle' in this light is simply laughable.
But those 'lost' votes to the Greens, would always find themselves back to the ALP in a 2PP voting system
But we have a preferential system not a 2pp-only system, meaning too many critical seats were being lost, like Tanner's in Melb.
I disagree.
I think there was strong support for the solution Gillard said, which was, Labor would call a community forum of experts to come with joint solution. Economists, greens, scientists stc.... To me , that made sense as first step, with the view the outcome would go to vote at next election.
To be far to Abbott, Abbott took on Turnbull over the ETS. He won and 51% of Libs agreed with him. Hence they changed policy and have held policy.
Had Turnbull won it would be joint ETS and Rudd would not have been rolled.
All history now, but ETS is not CT in my opinion.
Peter 14.7
Well I thought we had bipartisan support for commitment to reduce our emissions by a minimum 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. Trouble is the way our emissions keep rising the actual reduction will have to be huge by the time 2020 comes around. And we keep putting off any action so maybe we will renege on that undertaking.
Typical short term thinking brought about by poll driven politicians and the 24hr news cycle.
Like the rest of the world.
Personally we will never unite worldwide unless:
- God arrives and tells us to pull our head in.
- Aliens arrive and tell us they want this place.
We tried it, called Communism. It failed.
Peter
Hence the ETS - the last two letters translated mean non-communist.
Oh dear. It looks like we're already moving into the old "core and non-core promises" territory with Tony Baloney. That was a lot quicker than I expected!
Translation: I'll just keep them for a bit.
article here
(It does go to show that Dazz's faux pas at the outset of this thread - the admission that the carbon tax was not actually rageworthy - was at least prescient in its timing.)
Translation: I'll just keep them for a bit.
article here
(It does go to show that Dazz's faux pas at the outset of this thread - the admission that the carbon tax was not actually rageworthy - was at least prescient in its timing.)
But it not an ETS.
It is proposed to be one but what we have is a flat Tax killing our economy already. And what we may get is not here and when/if we get it.... will anyone in manufacturing be left?
Peter 14.7
I said nothing of the sort and admitted nothing. Your ability to mis-quote and contort does you no good.
What I said was, it would be difficult to maintain the rage amongst the public until early 2015.....but that was assuming of course that Labor Senators will vote against the changes.
With their upcoming devastation in the next election, along with the recent insight provided by one of the participants that Labor won't object to getting rid of it after the election wipeout, I don't think maintaining the rage amongst the population will be necessary.
Of course, if Labor keep carrying on like they are, we won't need Labor's help in defeating the Greens to get rid of it in the Senate. Liberals will have enough numbers by themselves to vote it out pronto.
It'll get flung out like the dead smelly cat that it is.
That's true. And what I said was, How could it be difficult to maintain that rage if the carbon tax was so pernicious to the public's wellbeing?
And you replied that you'd never said such a thing. Which is kind of bizarre, even for you, I'd submit.
Now you say,
Not all of it, Mr Abbott is implying. He might for example keep the head, should 'difficulties' warrant. Seems he has an altogether less delicate nose than you've been led to believe.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, David Cameron's Conservatives in the UK have just introduced a draft Energy Bill to Parliament which amongst other things,
- Bans new generators emitting over 450kgCO2/MWh, which is well below what coal plant can achieve without carbon capture and storage - effectively a ban on new coal plant; and
- Introduces uniform tariffs for renewables and other zero carbon solutions, with the subsidy having to be paid back once market electricity prices exceed that tariff.
There are other features of their policy which will only be of interest to electricity market nuts like myself (like introducing a capacity market which looks identical to what operates in WA - unlike the east coast which is an energy only market - this requires a whole thread to explain...). The main thrust of the whole policy is to give power industry investors certainty of income and returns to ensure access to low cost sources of long term finance (both equity and debt).
Suffice it to say it all looks like pretty good policy to me for a whole host of reasons beyond the scope of this thread. If history is anything to go by, this type of thinking will likely form the basis of future carbon and energy policy in Australia as it was UK energy policy which formed the basis for electricity market deregulation in Australia in the nineties.
- Bans new generators emitting over 450kgCO2/MWh, which is well below what coal plant can achieve without carbon capture and storage - effectively a ban on new coal plant; and
- Introduces uniform tariffs for renewables and other zero carbon solutions, with the subsidy having to be paid back once market electricity prices exceed that tariff.
There are other features of their policy which will only be of interest to electricity market nuts like myself (like introducing a capacity market which looks identical to what operates in WA - unlike the east coast which is an energy only market - this requires a whole thread to explain...). The main thrust of the whole policy is to give power industry investors certainty of income and returns to ensure access to low cost sources of long term finance (both equity and debt).
Suffice it to say it all looks like pretty good policy to me for a whole host of reasons beyond the scope of this thread. If history is anything to go by, this type of thinking will likely form the basis of future carbon and energy policy in Australia as it was UK energy policy which formed the basis for electricity market deregulation in Australia in the nineties.
but, see - this uses policy to guide general target and lets the market sort itself out. this is good policy IMPO.
it's not a consumption tax on a product when there is little to no alternative to said product.
the current EU truck pollution policy (euro 6 now? 7?) means that 50 trucks in 2012 put out the same pollution as one truck in 1985.
all they did was cap emissions and left it up to the market to sort out.
did it kill the truck industry? no! in fact, if anything, the quality is better, the product is more economical to not only build but operate AND emissions targets have been met.
its win win win.
a tax solves nothing.
Similar threads
