The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66

FR Drew

Not a custom title.
As long as you understand that people are just as passionate about public sector waste. You aren't losing your job, provided you don't quit you'll continue to drain the public purse as long as you desire, that is the difference.

As for people not being killed by you, that would be correct. But Garrett and the Public sector Bureaucrats in charge of the Insulation Scheme are just as culpable for the four deaths that occured as Tony Hayward and a few other BP and Transocean corporates are for the death of 11 Deepwater Horizon workers drilling a BP well. Heads roll at the top with associated golden handshakes that occur in both public and private, yet 12k public servants and probably just as many BP workers will potentially have to face different employment in the coming year. The difference is you won't be shown the door, they probably will if BP continue to flounder, so I'm sure you could understand if a few of those workers thought you could also blow it out your arse.
Nice to know that everybody who works in the public service is automatically a "drain on the public purse". Actually in the interests of people having facts as opposed to conjecture, as a non-ongoing person in the APS, if they decide to cut jobs by attrition I am out of work and will get shown the door if my area of the APS is downsized or has its funding reduced. Not everybody in the APS are permanent staff you know.

There's a gulf of difference between four people dying because their employer failed to give them a safe workplace or adequate training to do their job safely and the entire planet becoming uninhabitable.

Hypothetically, if all the fish die and it stops raining so crop yields are bugger all and 2/3 of the arable land is underwater anyhow, will the fact that we got cheap power for another 20 years be considered worth it?
 

dcrofty

Eats Squid
He still holds his Senate seat until 30 June next year. From July 1 he is gone. For that period of time he still has his voting rights.
Yeah Yeah of course. But the government has other people to deal with in the meantime to even get any legislation up to the senate for Fielding to block. Perhaps he's pissed his time in the limelight is drawing to a close.

The Coalition (Abbott) have told him to shove his ideas up his arse.
Yes was just reading that. Very amusing.
 

seventyseven

percent of Australians blame the bike for their cr
Given the projected, permanent costs to the planet at large, in terms of environmental costs and the humanitarian costs involved in reduced resource production in a world economy where there is insufficient food to feed the current and growing population, I can't see there being a morally or economically justifiable argument for complete inaction - but I don't believe anyone who suggests they can reduce carbon emissions with no impact on industry and the consumer - it doesn't make logical sense.
aha but you you see, this is where the scientists such as yourself, and engineers come in. you mention that fossil fuels are a major source of income for the country, and that is true. as you have noted, we need alternatives. that means R&D. things such as biofuels are fantastic, and the vast majority of the time the "greener" option is usually cheaper for the companies as well. they tote the moral high ground in "hurr durr company X is reducing carbon" but you'll note that it's never in a way that increases their costs.

all aggregate action stems from the action of the individual. what we need to do is in someway use the selfishness of the individual to benefit the aggregate as a whole - in essence how the entire capitalist structure works.

you develop a product for selfish reasons, but in doing so provide consumers with a better procuct/more competition/cheaper prices, so you both win.

using this selfish nature, i believe the solution lies in shaping the actions of the individual. i.e, feed the greed and make it cheaper to not pollute than to do so. right now, there are a lot of ways in which this naturally occurs. simply using less electricity etc. however economies of scale currently exist for "dirty" solutions whilst their green alternatives do not have access to this - meaning they are not economical purchases.

what i'm suggesting is in essence what is being pushed by the greens, however my solution is to reduce the costs of being green rather than increase the costs of not doing so, the reasons for which i have already outlined.

the greens however would push their carbon tax solution simply because the entire party/followers as a whole are economically retarded.

While a range of other taxes were reduced as a result of it, brining in the GST was hardly popular with the electorate (or small business). For both groups it increased their day to day costs and it still does.

So, lots of people didn't like it? Stiff bickies, it's there and we pay and just accept it.

Prices for stuff go up every single day and people suck it up (private health insurance premiums anyone?).

If carbon costs more, then the end cost will get passed on to the consumer and others in the chain will get a rebate the same as they do with the GST. Unlike the GST, while you'd pay more in the short term, if the dollars raised from the tarrif went towards funding incresed power development in renewables or green (solar, wind, e85 fuel etc) then sooner or later costs would actually come down as those resources came on line. 10% ethanol petrol already costs us less at the bowser, and many people choose to use it. in this case, the greener choice is cheaper.

At present, coal fired power is cheaper, but if solar were avaiable at the same price, how many folks would choose to pay a price premium just to have the globally warm fuzzy feeling of propping up the coal miners?

The main people with a vested interest in the status quo (and in expensive solutions like carbon sequestration) are those in the fossil fuel industry who want consumption to remain at current levels.

It would seem that our planet has a differing view to how workable that is and the sooner we take intelligent steps towards reducing our fossil fuel consumption, the better.

I couldn't give a rats if the arse falls out of the share price of BP if it means that my daughters kids will have a planet to live on. How can they say "have more kids, we need more people paying tax in 20 years time to cover the costs of pensions" and yet they have no regard for the conditions those same people will be living in because it's "somone elses's problem later on"? The people paying those taxes in the future and the people living with the consequences of our actions now are the same people.
as far as the GST goes, don't ever associate popularity with correctness.

as far as BP goes, what if you were a shareholder and all your wealth got wiped out? the big oil companies would i think much prefer everyone to run on E85. not only do you need to burn more of it to get the same KM out of a tank, but it's cheaper to produce as well. however, the demand is not there and until it does they'll keep selling fossil fuels.

as far as the whole "have more kids" thing goes.. ugh. i can't think of a single policy more stupid.

the stupidity, incompetence and inefficiency of government is why i'm right leaning. government by far and large is not the solution, it's the problem.

Would you understand if someone that works for BP did give a rat's arse?
or owns the company?

E85 or other ethanol additive fuels are actually NOT cheaper. :)

They cost less at the bowser, correct. BUT they are less efficient then normal fuel. It costs say 5c less per litre. 5/125 = 4% cheaper. But the fuel is 6-7% or so less efficient, so you use more fuel for the same driving.

It is not cheaper.
right now it isn't. what we have to remember is that fuel is taxed at (iirc) 38c per litre. that's how much goes to the government. god knows what they do with it but...

the result is that people won't buy ethanol fuels because they're not as cost effective. the proportion of savings/litre are outweighed by the increased consumption.

now, the reason this is happening is in part due to the stupidity of the consumer. if the consumer continues to buy ethanol blended fuels at a cost ineffective price, united (and whoever else sells it) isn't going to drop their price.

if the government was to offer a rebate/tax writeoff/etc for ethanol fuel conversions as it did with LPG, and ran some simple advertising campaigns about the costs/benefits of ethanol fuels, things would start to change.

initially, perhaps not a lot due to the alternatives of regular fossil fuels being available. but when there is more demand for ethanol fuels and they are cheaper to produce, it will take very little time for the oil companies to go into fierce competition for the market.

for the record, caltex just announced a big 100 outlet rollout of E85 to coincide with holden releasing an E85 compatible commodore, and one of the reasons caltex did so is that the company has been bleeding cash previously and needed a new strategy/market.

the result is that the companies can offer E85 (or whatever) at a price that is proportionately equal to using fossil fuels. i'm not sure what the exact ratios are, but if it burns 20% more then drop the price by 20% - the much cheaper production costs are there to do it.

additionally, the government could tax ethanol fuels much less than it does fossil fuels, and even provide lesser tax rates on profits attained by selling ethanol fuels. all motivation from both the supply and demand sides to stop burning unleaded.

the result is that whilst the consumer may* not end up netting a lower fuel bill each week, there is much less pollution going on.

some may raise the possibility of a price ceiling being implemented, i.e if a fuel is 20% less efficient it cannot be sold for more than 80% of the regular unleaded price, but this would only result in the price of regular fuels being jacked up, and less competition due to the lower profitability.

*i say may because, if the taxes were dropped for the consumer and/or the producers, that means a combination of increased demand (so more profitability) and lower "costs" - so increased profitability. that means more motivation for more suppliers to enter the market, meaning increased competition and lower prices.

**a note to make is that (having a friend of a friend that works in a servo whilst he's at uni) is that the profit margins of the oil companies on fuel is actually very low. i'm talking less than 5c/litre. apparently they make more money from selling drinks/chocolates/etc in the shops than they do from the fuel. (you'll note there is a reason why you have to walk past all the display fridges/etc to get to the counters at the very back of every servo you go to ;))

Granted - I was more referring to the employment considerations of reducing fossil fuel consumption and export. Yes it will cost jobs - but there doesn't seem to be a problem in reducing employment in other sectors when it is in the national interest to do so.
cutting the public sector is in the nations interest because of the woeful incompetence of it.

climate change is a global issue and so it's a little different. changes like this need to be system wide - typically when you cut most non essential public sector jobs it results in the private sector investing in/producing in the industry (if it is in fact needed, which is determined quite simply by demand). the result is that you either have A; a firm in place that actually has an incentive plan (in fact they have no choice other than) to be efficient, or no firm in place at all because what the department was doing was not just partially pointless or wasteful, it was completely.

Nice to know that everybody who works in the public service is automatically a "drain on the public purse". Actually in the interests of people having facts as opposed to conjecture, as a non-ongoing person in the APS, if they decide to cut jobs by attrition I am out of work and will get shown the door if my area of the APS is downsized or has its funding reduced. Not everybody in the APS are permanent staff you know.

There's a gulf of difference between four people dying because their employer failed to give them a safe workplace or adequate training to do their job safely and the entire planet becoming uninhabitable.

Hypothetically, if all the fish die and it stops raining so crop yields are bugger all and 2/3 of the arable land is underwater anyhow, will the fact that we got cheap power for another 20 years be considered worth it?
this is another issue with power. the reasons that places like victoria's hazelwood aren't shut down is not because they're the cheaper way of producing power (they're not, by a long shot) but because of the loss of jobs/political fallout from the electorate that would occur from doing so.

in a nutshell, people refusing to accept that their skills have become obsolete and so using the power they have to continue being a drain, waste & environmental problem. herein lies the problem with democracy.

the easy solution is to simply privatise the supply of electricity - that's the ultimate test of efficiency right there.







as another point i'd like to note about the greens and their economical retardation, placing a tax on carbon is only going to result in that tax being passed on to consumers.

a very easy way to demonstrate this is with fuel prices. you think if the government raises taxes on all fuels for all the suppliers (caltex, bp, exxon/mobil, shell, united, wheover else) that that won't just instantly increase the price of fuel? these companies aren't going to let the tax eat into their bottom line, not by a long shot. in fact the fuel industry is one of the closest industries there is to the model of "perfect competition", i.e if they were to lower their margins any more they'd be making an economic loss and would leave the industry.

in addition to this problem of the fuel tax being passed on to the consumer, this is going to result in infinitely more prices increasing. think about just how many things that are purchased or supplied that are reliant on fuel.. virtually everything. that's a cost for the suppliers of these things, one which they will all incur, so prices are going to have to go up.

incidentally, this means our supply curve shifts leftwards and incidentally, fewer people can purchase their products. resulting in less consumer and producer surpluses, perhaps enough to offset any additional revenue the fuel tax brings in.

however, i haven't majored in econometrics and macroeconomic modelling, so i couldn't actually do the maths to determine whether this would actually occur. many could however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence here's a pretty easy 101 on taxes being passed on. the graphs say it all really.
 

FR Drew

Not a custom title.
I can remember my dad bitching when petrol went up to 30c a litre and LPG was 17c a litre. Now it's what, $1.30 or thereabouts pretty regularly for unleaded?

People pay it, transport compaines pay it, it adds tothe cost of all the goods you buy and no-one bats an eyelid.

To say that the arse would fall of everything out if we paid for the use of carbon is crap. Day to day we pay more for lots of things thanks to the GST. People got used to the higher cost. It's the way things are, same as paying 15% VAT in the UK, it's how it is. Deal with it. So somehow when Howard puts a consumption tax on most things you sing the praises of it as a good thing, but when the Greens propose putting a tax on some things, that's "retardation"?
 

smeck

Likes Dirt
Nice to know that everybody who works in the public service is automatically a "drain on the public purse"...........

Hypothetically, if all the fish die and it stops raining so crop yields are bugger all and 2/3 of the arable land is underwater anyhow, will the fact that we got cheap power for another 20 years be considered worth it?
The Public service is a drain on the purse, it doesn't earn or generate income therefore it only costs. Parts of the public service are quite necessary, they exist for administering and processing things that need to be done. However anyone that has dealt with the mulitple layers of bureaucracy when buying and renovating a house will be able to attest to the different departments, all with their handout for a fee and all requesting similar information, yet none of them talking to each other or actually providing a service. Dept of E&R, the BSA, the Council, all took a fee to process forms that achieved nothing but fuelling a bloated bureacracy that doesn't value add to society. Some public sectors are a very necessary because they add value, others do not and therefore are not.

As for the end of the world, no it wouldn't be worth it, but nothing submitted as yet is going to help that. Copenhagen ended in chaos and the only Carbon policy submitted to Parliament was rejected by all except Labor, Gillard didn't even like it, she petitioned Rudd to postpone it to 2013. Bad policy is bad policy, good intentions don't make it all better. Only Labor and Tim Flannery liked it, the Liberal moderates thought it was a start, the Liberal conservatives and the Nationals hated it, the Greens hated it, even Ross Garnaut said ”I think this whole process of policy making over the ETS has been one of the worst examples of policy making we have seen on major issues in Australia.”

......... Day to day we pay more for lots of things thanks to the GST. People got used to the higher cost.........
I recall a sales tax that was generally 21% being replaced by a 10% GST. I recall some things going up but also a hell of a lot of things getting cheaper. I doubt anyone disputes the administrative load on a small business caused by the GST, but until a Government is going to dedicate itself to reforming tax instead of generating new taxes nothing is going to change.

........So somehow when Howard puts a consumption tax on most things you sing the praises of it as a good thing, but when the Greens propose putting a tax on some things, that's "retardation"?
The retardation is the Greens saying their Policy is "a tax on producers, not on consumers". It's retardation to believe the cost won't be passed on, while the consumer bearing the cost isn't a bad thing since consumption is the real issue, the thought process is flawed and telling the public they won't bear the cost is a lie. If all of the money raised was guaranteed to go into renewable energy generation and research it would get my support. However the Labor CPRS with 120% compensation wasn't going to do that, if the Government is going to pay the user's power bill the user is only going have more money to use more power. Long term clean energy generation necessitates a reduction in consumption, renewables will never support our current power fetish and the CPRS wasn't going to help that. Hence crap policy, hence rejected by the Greens and the Coalition. A viable Carbon policy pushed by a committed Government will eventually get through Parliament, currently it's just window dressing.
 
Last edited:

smeck

Likes Dirt
Brisbane has been declared for Gambaro so the final result is 73 seats to the Coalition and 72 to Labor, with 1 Green and 4 Independants. I beleive WA National Tony Crook also wants to be considered an Independant, even though he apparently intends to sit with the Nationals in Parliament.
 

FR Drew

Not a custom title.
Smeck, I never said that I approved of the Labor CPRS, I agree wholeheartedly that is crap policy.

What I've always thought would be good would be precisely what I've outlined, a carbon tax with appropriate input credits, as per the functioning of the GST, and with 100% of the revenue directly invested in non polluting technology to meet as much of our power needs cleanly as we possibly can.

All this cap and trade and market system is bullshit of the highest order.
 

Rider_of_Fast

Likes Bikes
Hold your horses...Don't get too excited about ousting the Red Baroness just yet. Interestingly, the media hasn't made a big deal about the G-G's dodgy links with union kingpin Shorten.

As if there isn't a 'conflict of interest'... I mean c'mon guys. Its gonna turn like the disaster down in Tasmania. Seems Australia can't escape its :mad:evil:mad: dictator :p

LEGAL advice has cleared Governor-General Quentin Bryce to make decisions about who forms government, despite family links to Labor's Bill Shorten.
The Governor-General sought advice from Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler on Monday about her role, after concerns were raised her daughter Chloe's marriage to Labor powerbroker Bill Shorten created a potential conflict of interest for the head of state.

However Mr Gageler says it is unnecessary for the Governor-General to stand aside. He has also cleared her to discharge her duties to resolve a constitutional crisis if the need arises.

“My advice to Her Excellency is that the marriage of her daughter to Mr Shorten gives rise to no constitutional or other legal impediment to the proper discharge of her functions of office,” Mr Gageler writes, in advice released today.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage'No conflict' in Quentin Bryce's role Adelaide Now, 1 hour ago
G-G more than a rubber stamp The Australian, 16 hours ago
G-G should resign now The Australian, 16 hours ago
Howard lawyer returns The Australian, 1 day ago
The best option is to resign, says silk The Australian, 2 days ago
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
As Labor and the Coalition are both seeking to form a minority government, Ms Bryce could be called on to determine which side of politics is most likely to form a workable majority in parliament.

But Mr Gageler notes that it would only be in extraordinary circumstances that Ms Bryce would be called on to use her own judgment to resolve a crisis. In ordinary circumstances, the Governor-General would act on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, Mr Gageler says the possibility of extraordinary circumstances arising in the “current state of uncertainty” cannot be excluded.

“The notion that the Governor-General might in such circumstances be constitutionally inhibited in the performance of her functions by reason of a perception of bias or of a conflict of interest is one that, in my opinion, finds no foothold in the structure or text of the Constitution,” he writes.

Such a prohibition would undermine rather than enhance the office of Governor-General, he says.

In the advice, Mr Gageler says several former governors-general have had prior political careers or personal relationships with members of parliament.

“In my opinion, the existence of connections and relationships of that kind can give rise to no disqualification from holding the office nor to any legal impediment to the performance of the functions of the office,” he writes.

“Where they exist, connections and relationships of that kind must be recognised as realities. They fall to be managed as a matter of prudence, not of legal obligation or legal impediment.”

Mr Shorten, one of the so-called faceless men who pushed to remove Kevin Rudd as leader, married Chloe Bryce in a garden ceremony late last year. They had their first child in January.

Mr Shorten, who is Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services, was previously married to Deborah Beale, whose father was former federal Liberal MP Julian Beale.

Ethicist Leslie Cannold this week said that as a hung parliament was looming, Ms Bryce, who was appointed by Mr Rudd on September 5, 2008, should stand aside.
 
Last edited:

Bodin

GMBC
Brisbane has been declared for Gambaro so the final result is 73 seats to the Coalition and 72 to Labor, with 1 Green and 4 Independants. I beleive WA National Tony Crook also wants to be considered an Independant, even though he apparently intends to sit with the Nationals in Parliament.
The Green (Bandt) is more likely to support than the Coalition, which effectively leaves both parties on 73 and needing 3/4 Independents.

Anyone got any actual insight (as opposed to rampant speculation) in to which direction the Independents are heading? I can't work out whether Abbott's reluctance to take the bait on the transparent costings issue is going to actually work against him or not...
 

seventyseven

percent of Australians blame the bike for their cr
I can remember my dad bitching when petrol went up to 30c a litre and LPG was 17c a litre. Now it's what, $1.30 or thereabouts pretty regularly for unleaded?

People pay it, transport compaines pay it, it adds tothe cost of all the goods you buy and no-one bats an eyelid.

To say that the arse would fall of everything out if we paid for the use of carbon is crap. Day to day we pay more for lots of things thanks to the GST. People got used to the higher cost. It's the way things are, same as paying 15% VAT in the UK, it's how it is. Deal with it. So somehow when Howard puts a consumption tax on most things you sing the praises of it as a good thing, but when the Greens propose putting a tax on some things, that's "retardation"?
you clearly have no understanding of economics. there is nothing more to say in response.

as for the gst.. the purpose of that was to simplify tax and invoke a consumption rather than an earnings tax. it got rid of many wholesale taxes for example - in doing so, things like fridges etc (and these items are needs, not wants by the way) went down in price.

in essence, it was a "luxury" spending tax. many essential items dropped in price and nonessential things went up (by a small amount in comparison). whether you agree with what was deemed essential/nonessential is not the issue. the tax however, was a good thing. if i had my way, we wouldn't have income tax and would only have consumption taxes.
 
Last edited:

Middo

Likes Bikes
The Public service is a drain on the purse........waffle etc........... are not.
They do provide benefit - it's just not immediately quantifiable to a dollar value, so apparently worthless in your eyes. In your example re housing, the departments all have a role to play to ensure that work is conducted to appropriate standards - ie oversight. Yes it's annoying, but you'll have assurance that the end product will be acceptable - to you as an investment in your health and well being, and financially, and to any prospective purchaser down the track. Just because YOU don't see it as tangible, doesn't mean it isn't so. The irony is that years ago, all the councils did this all in-house, for minimal fee, but now it's (public service) been split up and made more "accountable" they are trying to recover costs for their "products" thanks to the economic/privatisation rationalists out there. So you, the user, pays. So if they charge you nothing, they are are a drain on the purse - if they try to recover costs, they're ripping you off for no benefit? Having just gone through this very process in Vic - a more privatized system, I much prefer the old model.

Having worked in (state govt) public service, at the pointy end, I didn't see or experience waste and inefficiency, I saw a lot of people doing an often thankless job, with an ever increasing workload, while being seeing the budgets and available resources shrink. I do think that in many areas (such as National Parks), there is a vested interest in keeping this in control of the public sector. I'm wary of any politician who starts crapping on about large scale cuts or restrictions to public services.

I can just not accept that everything must have a quantifiable dollar value to be justifiable. At the end of the day, the economy is a means to an end - not the end in itself.
 

smeck

Likes Dirt
......As if there isn't a 'conflict of interest'... ....
As if the Governor General actually appoints the Prime Minister? The GG will invite either Abbott or Gillard to form Government based on whichever one can actually get the Independants to guarantee supply in writing. The GG won't have any influence in the negotiations or the decision, the role is so ceremonial it's nearly pointless. Essentially as the Caretaker, Gillard will advise the GG on who to invite to form Government based on who actually can form Government. I suspect we will know before the GG does.

The Green (Bandt) is more likely to support than the Coalition, which effectively leaves both parties on 73 and needing 3/4 Independents.

Anyone got any actual insight (as opposed to rampant speculation) in to which direction the Independents are heading? I can't work out whether Abbott's reluctance to take the bait on the transparent costings issue is going to actually work against him or not...
While Bandt is counted with Labor I doubt his allegiance will effect the Independants. Tony Crook is more important, if he sits with the Nationals its 73/72, if he doesn't its 72 all. The party with the most seats has the backing of the public, the Independants will need a good reason to support Labor considering they are going against the conservative leanings of their electorate and the overall opinion if the nation. The decision will also be reviewed in hindsight, they will pay the price years from now based on the success of who they support, not the reasoning for the decision at the time. They will think long and hard about this.

Oakeshott could easily go either way, I suspect towards Labor, the same with Katter. Katter is a socialist at heart and has enough margin in his electorate to survive any backlash. Windsor will probable be the best indication of the negotiation process, wily and experienced, he's not eager like Oakeshott or a grandstander like Katter. Oakeshott refers to effective Government, so far that seems to mean the Coalition until June 30 and Labor afterwards, depending on the talks with Brown about the Greens intentions in the Senate. Whether Oakeshott would survive his electorate will depend on whether Labor implode under Gillard, he's ambitious and eager, his personal longevity will be a factor in his decision. Windsor (I think) will go back to the polls before he supports Gillard, if he can't get an agreement from Abbott that he can accept he'll sit on the cross benches or call for another election.

If he backs Labor on the premise of stable government and Gillard gets challenged he's gone in his otherwise conservative electorate. The chances of surviving a minority government for 3 years would have to be close to zero, Menzies didn't last much over a year. I can't see how this will make it to the end of next year anyway, let alone with one party under the same leader. Gillard is a leftie running on right wing support, Abbott is regularly chatised by his own cabinet for undisciplined comments, neither have much of a power base.

I can't see Labor getting an easy ride but Gillard will at least attempt to go the full term, I doubt Abbott will be afraid of a DD election if he's antagonised. Brown needs a succesful full term to legitimise the Greens as an alternate party, he knows they got a big Labor protest vote and will cop a backlash in an early DD if the public don't get responsible Government, I think the prospect of Abbott controlling the Lower House intimidates him. Talks with Brown will heavily alter the Independants, if he's planning on dictating policy from the Senate it won't matter who controls the House, nothing of substance will get through.

Wilkie will be the interesting one. He was the Iraq War intelligence fiasco whistleblower so Howard essentially cost him his professional career. He's run on the Greens ticket against Howard in Bennelong but apparently grated with the Greens party politik. As a Tasmanian his electorate will probably support a Labor alliance, but he's playing his cards so close to his chest he either has no intention of supporting a major or he's torn between a right wing mindest and a left wing seat. If he was open to Labor he'd say so, like Bandt has, something is amiss.
 

FR Drew

Not a custom title.
you clearly have no understanding of economics. there is nothing more to say in response.

as for the gst.. the purpose of that was to simplify tax and invoke a consumption rather than an earnings tax. it got rid of many wholesale taxes for example - in doing so, things like fridges etc (and these items are needs, not wants by the way) went down in price.

in essence, it was a "luxury" spending tax. many essential items dropped in price and nonessential things went up (by a small amount in comparison). whether you agree with what was deemed essential/nonessential is not the issue.
Yay for you and your most impressive grasp of economics. Pat yourself on the back and give yourself a big high five in the mirror, you obviously deserve it.

Again, you're utterly missing the point, which was that many things that we pay for every day have a 10% component on them and no-one notices anymore, and in the course of my remembered lifespan, petrol has gone from 30c/L up to as high as $2.00 a litre and yet, astoundingly, the world did not end. If it's a necessity and the price is relatively stable, people adapt/get used to it. They bitch about a short term shock and then they adjust. Utility charges for water and power, net connection and mobile fees, petrol, cooked food, private health insurance premiums...

I'm not even disputing the merits of the GST, it's there and we've all moved on. This is precisely my point. And we could do the same if there was a carbon tax. But even better, if it was put into developing and bringing renewables on line, because we were paying for the carbon, not the power, gradually as the fossil fuel side became a lower component of our power usage, we'd actually be paying less than we previously had, not more.
 
Last edited:

harmonix1234

Eats Squid
Time to lighten it up a little....

Hitler finds out Australia has a hung Parliament

[video=youtube;Fcnhc8Ch63E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcnhc8Ch63E[/video]
 

Arete

Likes Dirt
my solution is to reduce the costs of being green rather than increase the costs of not doing so, the reasons for which i have already outlined.

the greens however would push their carbon tax solution simply because the entire party/followers as a whole are economically retarded.
I understand your solution - and in theory it would work well - though I can imagine it would still incur protest from the coal lobby/sceptics/mining.

The slice of the issue that it would not address - an it's a big slice is our fossil fuel export industry. While our absolute contributions to greenhouse gas are low, our per capita input is the highest in the world and could effectively be reduced by incentive to not pollute, yes. However, it would not discourage the export of fossil fuel to other nations - which is far and away our major contribution to the issue on the global scale.

Now I understand it's not as simple as sell less coal, China burns less, everyone's happy (except coal miners) as China can get coal elsewhere. However - they're getting it from us because it's the cheapest. We raise the price, they either complain, arrest mining company executives in China and cough it up, or they go elsewhere and pay more. Either way, they pay more, which is likely to reduce Chinese coal consumption. Given we are the largest single exporter of the commodity, if we raise prices, global prices go up. e.g. OPEC nations who decided in the 70's oil was worth a crapload more than what everyone was paying, cranked up the price and created the oil crisis - which massively reduced consumption.

Either way, addressing domestic emissions while still exporting ridiculous amounts of coal, gas and oil to other nations is doesn't really address our primary role in the issue.

Imagine we place a 10% tariff on fossil fuel exports. Invest it in a NHMRC style renewable energy competitively awarded research fund - for $30-50 million per year, you could easily fund a National Research Network with Centre in every capital city, a dozen high end academic research jobs and associated research groups. It would easily be a world class setup. I imagine you'd generate more than $50m per annum - invest the rest in "green" employment creation like set up grants for "green" technology producers.

Now of course China is going to jack up and get pissed about it - and so is the coal industry. Coal industry - oh well. even the Liberals know that there will never be another coal fired power station constructed here, so it local importance will only subside. Why not use its profits to help generate a sucessive industry? China - hmm tough one. No one wants to piss off their major trading partner, and we don't exactly have the moral high ground on the whole emitting greenhouse gases and being a good world citizen on the issue. However it "could" be a bargaining chip in setting up a collaborative approach to tackling carbon emissions - set up and exchange or research and development teams and concepts - invest in green technology actually in China, set up collaborative green enterprise etc and so on...

I dunno. Bit too utopian. But we do need to address the fact our major role is not domestic carbon pollution, but that we sell bucketloads of fossil fuels to other people and therefore profit from carbon emissions. As a result we do have at least a moral obligation to do something about our role in the global issue.
 
Last edited:
Top