Yes, I am very concerned about the rationality of the Gillard team's fiscal management. I strongly suspect that they will pursue a surplus for political (rather than economic) reasons, so there is every possibility that the budget's make-up will turn out to be significantly sub-optimal once it is revealed. Nonetheless, I do strongly believe a balanced budget in 2012-13 is in the national interest, and surplus budgets wherever possible going forward while the mining boom lasts (the latter being what I fear an Abbott-led government won't even try to achieve).
Getting rid of the Carbon Tax
- Thread starter Dazz
- Start date
Yes, I am very concerned about the rationality of the Gillard team's fiscal management. I strongly suspect that they will pursue a surplus for political (rather than economic) reasons, so there is every possibility that the budget's make-up will turn out to be significantly sub-optimal once it is revealed. Nonetheless, I do strongly believe a balanced budget in 2012-13 is in the national interest, and surplus budgets wherever possible going forward while the mining boom lasts (the latter being what I fear an Abbott-led government won't even try to achieve).
ok my time frames were optimistic. the point was IF the libs didn't have a senate majority following the next election and wanted to repeal the tax by way of a DD then why would they need to wait till July 2014 (as Dazz's post indicated)?
thanks. interesting.
so the libs could start the process of a DD but not quite get it finished by july 2014 and would have to start again, so that's another year-ish. if the libs didn't start the process immediately they would appear to be doing nothing on the issue for nearly a year.
so if the libs judge that they won't be able to achieve a DD before the newly elected senators sit, mid 2014 then according to the journo they might not be able to have a DD till mid 2015. that's a hell of a long time in politics.
i can't remember what Dazz called it, but that's a hell of long time to maintain momentum.
I remember - Dazz called ït "the biggest hurdle". You know, as in not finding any WMDs after the fact? That sort of biggish hurdle.
Surely it's OK if you pick it up by the clean end?
Ed,
To the best of my knowledge, there is a time lag between knowing what the final numbers in the Seante will be (Aug 2013) and being able to use the numbers (July 2014), IF indeed they secure the numbers.
In that small window of 9 months between forming Govt in the Lower House and when the Senate mix changes, there simply isn't enough time to go through the circus twice over.
The Green and Labor Senators can quite rightly send it off to committee after committee, forestalling it as much as they like.
If the PM calls a double dissolution, the Governor General needs to be careful, as the High Court could easily over-rule the decision if the Senators from Labor feel they have been rushed and not been granted sufficient time to fully consider the Bills before voting on it.
Get that other circus involved and they'll tie you up in knots for years.
Nope, best course of action is to see how the numbers fall regarding new Senate composition....if enough Lib / Nat Senators get elected, go for it as of July 2014...it'd all be over in 1 month. If not, start the DD process in July 2014, and hope to be out the other side in say April or May 2015.....some 3 years from now !!
Looking at some of the recent analysis, it appears that everyone is calculating what the current polls would indicate in terms of Senate numbers to determine this very thing. It's a big deal.
Yes, but why majority of people still believe it? They are all misinformed. When people don't understand they tend to follow and believe what is presented to them by government and media, etc.... If we wish to invest into property we seek advice from property investors so for climate change we should listen to experts in the field the geologists (the independent ones not the ones paid by government).
Many people don't even know the answers. What % of Carbon is in our atmosphere? I heard it was around 3% and that cows grazing produced more than all of us.
IMO it's a big ponzi scheme, where either government in power will in 2 years after its introduction pull in huge $$$$ (will approximately pull in what a whole of Europe pulls in).
My dear geology friend did some years ago a great research and historically we are coming closer to an ice age instead (every 12 thousand or million years - cannot remember his actual words gee!).
Also free thinker, Professor Ian Plimer, has produced some great readings too for anyone interested. Science hasn't changed but human intellectual vogue has!
Just listen to the link from slide 2 and see if anyone can understand what is presented to them and then perhaps we can have a discussion starting from the start why do we need to pay for 'Carbon Tax'?
http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2008/november/plimer/player.html
When I was 18 I visited then the communist country I was born in and guess what? I was required to exchange certain amount of AUS $ to that country's currency per day, hence, we used to call it OXYGEN tax!
So yes, government will impose taxes. However, I wouldn't dismiss carbon tax likely as once an industry is ruined it may never be brought to life or at least it may move abroad and never return!
The slide 67 from link above certainly helps to explore the myth!
Nice shuffle that, from 'big hurdle' to 'big deal'.
Perhaps this might work too, from 'maintain the rage' to 'contain the rage'?
And after three years, from 'carbon tax' to 'carbonized tax'? (but ... come to think of it . . . by which time it would be due for supercession by an ETS, which is another thing that Howard, Turnbull and Abbott all once readily supported . . . Doh!).
Because referendums are used to change the Constitution not make legislation.
Deliberately misquoting 2 words from an entire post regarding the Parliamentary requirements to change policy and then compare them with 2 words from an entirely different post regarding the importance of the issue at the next election is vacuous.
Hopefully forum members can see you are being puerile.
A nice succinct video showing the duplicity on which this far reaching Tax is based.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNYb3XWVTE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNYb3XWVTE&feature=related
This even more succinct one conveys the same message but is thankfully a lot less tedious -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVv0GYeO2Ec&feature=fvwrel
As has been demonstrated many times before, this is not the place to discuss Climate Science. The place to question the particular evidence you have a problem with is in the peer reviewed scientific journal in question where it is presented. You can appreciate that experts in the field would not want to waste their time discussing the evidence with people who wouldn't know their albedo from their atmospheric lifetime. If you don't have the necessary understanding then get it first.
Just like it would make no sense to discuss three dimensional vector calculus with people who wouldn't know their polar coordinates from their rectangular coordinates.
Fortunately the scientific method is completely undemocratic and cares not what people think of it. Lots of people used to think the earth was flat and was at the centre of the universe. Anything else just didn't make sense to them. They were wrong too... the evidence to prove them wrong was all around them but they just didn't know what they didn't know.
Why are you discussing it? Have you written peer reviewed papers?
I reject your notion totally. They must be kept honest by thorough oversight.
That has nothing to do with global warming, I mean Climate Change.
Back in late 1999, another looming disaster was foisted on the unknowing public by the alarmists, telling anyone who'd listen there was an impending disaster and immediate action was needed to avert a calamity. Everyone swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
IT experts were telling everyone that the Y2K bug was going to be catastrophic for world commerce, airplanes were going to fall out of the sky, entire computer systems would crash and send everything into a spin.
The lay public had no clue whether what they were being told was correct or not. There was no way the public could question the IT experts on the way the system worked. Almost everyone put their faith in what the IT experts told them. What else could you do ??
In the end, it turned out to be a complete farce. The experts were off on their own fairy story. It was proved to be a massive joke, but many IT depts swelled to "cope with the impending crisis".
I can remember my boss at the time reluctantly putting on 2 extra IT experts at great expense in July 1999 for a 6 month contract. The IT boys were lapping it up. They had the prestige, they had the power, they had an unlimited budget to do whatever was deemed by themselves to be necessary. Normal managers were stripped of their authority.
Of course, in the end, nothing happened. It was a complete beat up and total fizzer.
I'm not.
Merely stating the fact that the place to challenge it is where it is presented where those who gathered the data and did the analysis can respond. Which is not here...Totally agree. That is what the peer review process is for. The opportunity is open to anyone to present alternative evidence. There is no greater goal in science than to find evidence which debunks prevailing wisdom. If someone actually has evidence to the contrary they should present it in the appropriate place. Which is not here...
Similar threads
