If that's the case, then why have 99% of criticism on this site been directed squarely at Gillard and Abbott? Again, more misinformation and utter bollocks.
The Biggest Tax EVER in Australia
- Thread starter josko
- Start date
If that's the case then why was a Liberal MP in low income, outer western Sydney yesterday banging on about the carbon tax to his constituents? (Howard's aspirational classes, no less.) While, educated left wing Labor voters who can actually think living in higher income inner suburbs were hard at work in their own small businesses and/or professionals in the city?
And why is the predominant listening audience for Liberal supporting, right wing shock jocks and sensationalist, tabloid newspapers low income, unskilled workers and uninformed bogans. Repeating verbatim the rubbish they hear and read in these media outlets, without really thinking.
Liberal is mostly supported by the struggling mortgage belt and unskilled bogans these days.
Again, a ridiculous over generalization and utter bollocks.
And why is the predominant listening audience for Liberal supporting, right wing shock jocks and sensationalist, tabloid newspapers low income, unskilled workers and uninformed bogans. Repeating verbatim the rubbish they hear and read in these media outlets, without really thinking.
Liberal is mostly supported by the struggling mortgage belt and unskilled bogans these days.
Again, a ridiculous over generalization and utter bollocks.
The best thing about elections evand, is that to win a Party doesn't need to convince everyone....just the majority. The coalition would never even attempt to convince you.
You are what they call "rusted on". A hopeless case.
You'll never vote Liberal and I'll never vote Green or Labor.
I'm over the moon to disagree with you. Our philosophies on life are different.
If you reckon that what I write is utter bollocks, then I reckon I'm just about on the right track.
Isn't life grand.
You are what they call "rusted on". A hopeless case.
You'll never vote Liberal and I'll never vote Green or Labor.
I'm over the moon to disagree with you. Our philosophies on life are different.
If you reckon that what I write is utter bollocks, then I reckon I'm just about on the right track.
Isn't life grand.
Actually, it is a historically fair generalization. I agree with Dazz on this 100%. I acknowledge that party politics are no longer black & white but rather, many shades of grey...
However, the party politics of Labor are still aimed at the working class, whilst Liberals tend to look after the top end of town and the middle class. Sure there are exceptions, but their core policies and the rationale behind them are quite clear if you strip the media BS away and look at the REAL picture...
Ohh, and we shouldn't forget that swingers (the voting kind) have always existed. I was brought up in a staunch working class Labor Party environment, but I am Liberalist through and through.... life isn't black & white and class isn't necessarily a political straight jacket.
I agree entirely. But a little factual posting on the forum goes a long way.
The best thing about elections evand, is that to win a Party doesn't need to convince everyone....just the majority. The coalition would never even attempt to convince you.
You are what they call "rusted on". A hopeless case.
You'll never vote Liberal and I'll never vote Green or Labor.
I'm over the moon to disagree with you. Our philosophies on life are different.
If you reckon that what I write is utter bollocks, then I reckon I'm just about on the right track.
Isn't life grand.
How about some facts on the failure of Copenhagen, and the failure of the global carbon trading market.
How about the fact that a carbon tax of at least $40 a tonne is required to make the next most viable alternative to coal (gas) competitive.
Fortunately for the majority on this forum, your personal opinion of "the facts" is not the definitive version by which we go by.
You do not and cannot determine what is absolute fact and what is not....and for that, I am eternally thankful.
Dazz, Labor policy is fact. Anything else is fascism.
Fortunately for the majority on this forum, your personal opinion of "the facts" is not the definitive version by which we go by.
You do not and cannot determine what is absolute fact and what is not....and for that, I am eternally thankful.
And neither can you.
I'd argue that negative gearing is the biggest middle class handout of them all.
Absolutely - but then I've never called for, nor guaranteed "the facts".
Mine is a personal opinion only.
Well ng only exists because socialist govts, driven by dill ideologies, are too incompetent to provide the biggest low class handout of them all - cheap rental housing.
Hence they con/entice the naive to buy IPs, charge less than what it costs to hold, and gamble on credit bubble driven capital gains offsetting holding costs.
Make no mistake; a socialist govt can not afford to provide rental accommodation to 33% of the population cheaper, no matter the self patting on the back by Tanya Pliberseck, for a few dozen affordable housing projects here and there. These are the ideologue's symbolic token efforts. And that's all socialists are capable of, because they run out of other people's money before delivering on their doe eyed promises.
Hi Dazz
Thanks for posting this.
If it wasn't for issues such as carbon I would agree with you - the choice would be simple. The problem is the Liberal party has always been torn in half between the "liberals" (who founded the party) and the "conservatives" (who don't yet have a viable party further to the right of the existing one in which to hang out). John Howard was such a good Liberal leader because he sat so well between these two camps. He was probably more of a conservative personally but made many decisions that were more progressive to keep the "wets" onside and keep the party together, within the "broad church" philosophy.
His influence was reputedly instrumental in getting Turnbull to hang around to ensure the party didn't become completely conservative under Abbott. It's also good risk management in the event the party is seen by history as backing the wrong horse with the "direct action" policy.
Personally, I'm philosophically a Liberal but I can't stand Abbott. A small section of the laundry list of policies that just make no sense from him include:
- "Direct Action" aka "No Action" or "Big govt purchasing instead of allowing the market to operate"
- No Statutory Individual Contracts (wtf? A classic policy that is in direct contravention of what the Liberal party stands for!)
- No offshore processing in countries that haven't signed the Refugee Convention (even though Nauru was in this category when Howard used this precise option)
- Maternity Leave - where did this come from? I would see it as a positive if he explained how he would pay for it (among other things) but he hasn't, which is a very un-Liberal thing to do. Where is all this money coming from????
- No Resource Rent Tax (at all? really? see above point about paying for his policies). Ken Henry explained very well why relying on royalties alone is bad policy and the states can't do anything other than royalties.
- Anti Dumping (What???? After decades of prosperity brought about by reducing tariff walls and increasing competition and productivity we want to go back to the past and increase bureaucracy to look through corporate underwear?)
I agree with his view on the NBN though and a few other things. The point being there is an avalanche of current policy in the Liberal party which openly contradicts Liberal values and it's down to the leader to fix it. I find it almost impossible to support the Liberals in their current form as a result. The only saving grace is that Turnbull is still there and with him there is a hope of the return of Liberal values rather than purely conservative ones (although maternity leave would have to be an outlier there...).
BTW I don't agree that "Corporate power" is a Liberal value. A combination of "Economic prosperity" and "Individual responsibility" could perhaps be better used in this context. Environmental stewardship is also a Liberal value - it's not and should not be the sole domain of the left. The Liberal party has a strong record on this through legislation such as the EPBC Act. And used to also have a strong record on it during its suppport of an ETS, at least in concept.
On the former, plenty of countries are enacting real policies on climate change. The fact that a global carbon trading market doesn't exist outside Kyoto and CDM is irrelevant in that context.
On the latter point, this is the precise nub of the argument around how much is it all going to cost. You reckon $40 hey? Not $39? $35? $30? $25? The only fact is that you don't know - nobody does. The target is 5% reduction by 2020. To know the necessary carbon price to achieve this target you need to know:
- The price of thermal coal for the next 9 years (have you checked spot prices lately?).
- The average price of gas across Australia for the next 9 years. Note that this is far more complex than international pricing due to the unknown extent of domestic oversupply on the east coast courtesy of Gladstone developments. Estimating this makes guessing the price of oil look simple...
- The comparative cost of coal and gas power station construction during this time (which is at least more predictable than the other two).
So you don't know the price required to switch from gas to coal. You also don't know the price required to reduce electricity demand from industry. Or the price required to justify retrofitting open cycle gas turbines with heat recovery / combined cycle. Or the price required for the myriad of other options in the economy to reduce emissions.
The only way to know the price is to put a target out there and see what happens in the market. If the price gets too high, the target can always be changed but lets just see what the market can achieve first shall we?
So you agree it's a middle class handout then?
Absolutely - to those who rent.
Similar threads
