This fortnight’s Newspoll shows Labor’s two-party lead unchanged on 56-44. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is down three points to 62 per cent, while Brendan Nelson’s is up two to 16 per cent.
The weekly Essential Research survey has Labor retaining its 59-41 lead. Peter Costello is rated best person to lead the Liberals by 26 per cent against 13 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull, 8 per cent for Julie Bishop and 7 per cent for Brendan Nelson. However, Kevin Rudd is preferred to Peter Costello head-to-head 53 per cent to 27 per cent.
916 Comments
I think Brendan should cut his losses and resign. I’ve had enough of the leadership speculation and the Liberal Party is severely haemorrhaging the longer it persists.
oh dear! the honeymoon is over and the narrowing is finally happening–is’nt it???
Yes, it has been fun watching the Nelson honeymoon. Just when he is starting to come good they want him axed.
It will be very interesting to see what happens in the Senate if the budget bills are sent up again and these numbers keep up for much longer. The maths are clear: at least 20% of coaition voters must be preferring Rudd to Nelson! ROTFL
Revberse argument is 56/44 is only 1% diference to Newspolls poll 2 weeks out from last 2007 Electon , and so let honeymooon run and install a new Leader 18 months out from next electon , so any party has tactics available Queston is who to lead…ca not see anyone
No 4
The Coalition should continue to oppose taxation increases.
GP depends if you really want to lose the next election by a big margin. Being obstructionist is not what the voters want in their favorite rabble according to Newspoll. If the rabble were in front in the polling I might agree with you.
Generic Person
Am struggling to see whether th ‘oz’ newspaper moved into Comedy Company teritory
Firstly dear Brendan’s name was mispelt in th Headline & Brendan’s improvement is 2% from 14 to 16% PPM , with Rudd down from 65% to 62%
HEADLINE of Newspoll
“Brandan Nelson improves slightly as preferred PM”
Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | September 08, 2008
Surely Generic Person you see above reporting as fools & comedy gold
Sorry Steve, but the Rudd government has no mandate to increase taxes. The “percentage of GDP” argument that Rudd is trying to run is quite untenable and surreptitious to say the least.
What will these polls be like after another interest cut or 2? And after the taxation overhaul resulting in a pension increase in the next budget?
Hi Ron
Speaking of polls Oils ain’t looking so flash lately
‘oz’ newspaper hav corrected th misspelling in last minute !
This is what ‘oz’ online paper DID hav a minute ago with Brendan’s name misspelt !!
“Brandan Nelson improves slightly as preferred PM”
Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | September 08, 2008
No 8
It’s not that funny. It’s just sad. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Brendan at a few Liberal functions and he is one of the nicest people I’ve met. He is also a good orator compared to hapless Rudd. The problem is that Costello is being cynical and refusing to make a final statement of his intentions, which is simply killing Nelson’s leadership potential. The best thing for the party right now is for him to fall on his sword and force a leadership spill. At least we will finally gauge Costello’s intentions.
12 “Costello is being cynical and refusing to make a final statement of his intentions”
That’s a bit harsh GP, Costello has made it abundantly he clear that he is writing a book and intends to sell it.
GP @ 12,
Costello’s actions moved into spoiler territory quite a few weeks ago. Not sure why Nelson hasn’t forced the spill yet.
He might as well as wait now for the ridiculous book launch (next Monday, I think). If Costello doesn’t show his hand then, then Nelson really ought to force a spill.
Oh dear, another Newspoll that doesn’t fit the media narrative of a supposedly deeply unpopular Labor Government! Who would have thought that the likes of Shanahan and Milne could get it so wrong?
Rudd’s cruising, realistically.
No 14
I think Nelson should force a spill now mainly to demonstrate that the party will not be held ransom to an arbitrary book launch!
No 15
If Labor was so wonderfully popular, they’d have fielded candidates in Mayo and Lyne. Clearly they don’t want their egos bruised.
Better still GP have the spill motion coincide with the book launch.
Well the Libs were crazy – politically – not to let Labor have its first budget just as they wanted it, in all its half-baked glory.
Now we’ll have two years of the Maroon twins Rudd and Swan telling us that the lack of an alcopops tax (oh, and cheap BMWs) is the reason for all Australia’s woes. The Liberal Party should have taken the moral high ground, let the new Govt have its way and let the voters work out that all this stuff is just window-dressing.
This is the problem with having such a parlously weak leader as Nelson.
Rod Cameron made an intersting comment on Lateline tonight. Brendan Nelson’s job is secure for a while, regardless of the polls.
Costello is probably leaving parliament. Why would he stay, it looks most unlikely Rudd will be thrown out after one term. If interest rates fall even further Rudd’s grip on the mortgage belt seats tighten, assuming unemployment doesn’t spike.
Malcolm Turnbull will wait until next year before he challenges. Why would he go sooner? Let Nelson absorb the punishment until Turnbull’s ascendancy is greeted with relief and enthusiasm.
I’d say Nelson is safe until just before the budget. Then Turnbull will make a grand entrance.
Hi Vera ,
how ar you , will make comment on other matter in a little while , but my take on cossie & Turnbull is alittle diferent from others
First should say here Cossie on my info is NOT going for jugler on Howard …which is consistent with Mr Smirk’s whimpy history , AND that he has ’stayed in th ring’ to discourage toffyiness Tunbull from challenging
But Mr Smirk’s game is drawing to an end , and toffyiness has been trying to out last Cossie credibiliy remaining in Parliament (and probably will succeed Then cossie is free to attack
Brenda will not lead Libs next time , and politcal strategy says for Labor that quicker a replacement is made th earlier Kevin07 can undermine his/her credibility during Kev’s honeymoon period
Generic Person: why waste money on two byelections you have zero chance of winning?
Hey, you should be celebrating Brenda leaping to a massive 16% approval rating LOL
Generic Person, is there anything at all that can get a laugh out of you? Any favourite jokes? A genre? Political idiots I have known? Anything? For goodness sake, stop taking it so seriously, or you’ll go nuts!
Sceptic,
I think you’re right. I actually think Nelson is trying to do the right thing by the Party, hanging on and taking the heat.
That’s ok in theory but in practice the only way he can keep the job is to pick fights about nothing. If Labor’s great economic plan is to tax 15 year-olds on their drinks and the North Shore on their chariots, fine, let ‘em do it! Who cares?
HSO,
Good advice to GP there.
Rudd is Liberal-lite, anyway. As a Liberal voter, I don’t lose too much sleep about having him as PM!
GP #18
It is not new for a government not to contest by-elections in safe opposition seats.
The Libs didn’t contest the previous 3 by-elections held in safe ALP seats: Isaacs in 2000, Cunningham in 2002 and Werriwa in 2005.
But isn’t Nelson supposed to be damaging the ‘brand’ whilst he is there?
ahhh Progressive, Shanahan’s been writing sort of positively {for him} glowing articles about Rudd the last week or so, perhaps he’s seen the light–or else he’s been awarded a moonlight writer to do his writeups for him.
No 26
I wasn’t losing too much sleep myself until Rudd decided to play cheap class wars in Question Time.
He’s a communist.
No 18
labor knew they couldn’t win a blue ribbon Fib seat and Oakshott was a shoe in to win Lyne. So why on earth would our fiscal conservative PM throw good money away on unwinable by-elections?
Rudd is a communist?
LMFAO
Dyno
you ar rather naughty when it gets to this time of mite For moment will simpy register ‘engagement’ on your claim for later discusion , but in meantime hope you hav expalnations on Liberal Policys that ar pro CC , pro Kyoto , pro medicare , anti 3 billion tax cuts , anti Private health rebate encouragements , pro capital works in All Schools , pro fast speed broadband , anti Iraq…all presumably Libela polcys in 2007 wanted to allow you advance info
I’d forgotten the “Rudd is Liberal Lite” blather. In that case there would be no reason to be obstructionist in the senate now would there?
No 33
Sorry Ron, I’m having a lot of trouble understanding your pathetic grammar and spelling. Looks like Labor delivered an education devolution.
Dyno, have you had a look at “The Piping Shrike” s blog? I’m a sceptic, lefty type person, but find the Shrike’s analysis one of the most astute around.
No 34
The Liberal Party stands for lower taxes on principle. Rudd has no mandate.
Judy, Shana, Milne and Lewis (to name a few) want Costello. if they can make Nelson look bad they will. It’s all in a good cause.
thats ok Generic Person , am un-offendable , will repost same data & same words in tabular form specialy for you ,
That idea about a mandate is an interesting one. So a government can’t do anything unless it has a mandate? Does anyone recall Howard having a mandate to send troops to Iraq?
Generic Person:
The Liberals stand for Oil Companies, Porsche drivers, the private health industry, and teenage binge drinkers.
37 The Liberal Party stands for lower taxes on principle.
Yes GP, we noted that the Liberals became ” The highest taxing government in the history of Australia.” Well done!
generic person is in pain. dont harass him, comfort him…only 7-10 more years of this.
Generic Person
tabular form , same words & spelling for your Liberal understandings
Liberal Policys that ar
pro CC
.
pro Kyoto
.
pro medicare
.
anti workchoices
.
anti 3 billion tax cuts for Rich people
.
anti Private health rebate encouragements
.
pro capital works in All Schools like solar panels & computers
.
pro fast speed broadband
.
anti Iraq
These Liberal policys were taken to last electon , think not
The Liberals want to maintain a tax slug(in the form of the Medicare levy) and rob many of up to $1200 per annum – yeah, obviously maintaining their belief in low taxation!
Did the Libs introduce the luxury car tax in the first place? If so, did they take that to an election first so that they had a mandate to do it?
But Gary, my good mate, how can we discriminate against those poor suffering Porsche drivers? Nelson is on a winner with this one, surely, if we follow Generic Person’s logic(sniggers to himself)
There is a Canadian election on, maybe more joy there.
56/44 seems to be Labor’s natural base now. Can’t imagine it will move permanently unless something is shaken up, like a new LNP leader. I guess the months of negative media campaigning cost Labor 1%. Would have cost more but no viable alternative to turn to at the time. Thus the OO and others blew their bolt in the dark and are now looking for some viagra in Costello.
I’m buggered if I know why I’m nice to Generic Person, who obviously, isn’t one.
No 42
An oft-repeated, but oft-disposed argument. The Liberals delivered 6 rounds of income tax cuts such that most people by the end of their term paid no more than 30c in the dollar. Also, tax revenue increased mainly due to the 2 million jobs created under the Howard Government.
Communists need to come up with a new argument.
No 41
Progressive, Porsche drivers aren’t the ones affected by the the LCT increase.
The FCAI has stated that the increase will affect cars in the 57k-70k range, hardly the domain of a porsche driver, you pathetic class bigot.
Generic Person, I have decided you are a fool. Communists!! Cretin!
Howard and Costello out- taxed Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, and Keating governments hands down but thanks for the crumbs after taking our bread, I’m sure you can understand one of the reasons why the Liberals are now gracing the opposition benches,GP.
No 45
Which will cause premium hikes for all private health members and increased costs on the public health system which will necessitate higher income taxes. Stop repeating Rudd’s spin and think about it.
Geez, the intellectual rigour around here is of infantile proportions.
Folks, let’s just hope for GPs state of mind and physical well being that the Libs get up in WA. There’s no knowing what harm he may inflict upon himself if they don’t.
Which reminds me, has anyone heard anything from ESJ today?
No 52
Steve, where did you get that from? The ALP handbook of lies? It’s a dishonest argument. Every government will have higher tax revenue than the last – it is a mathematical certainty as a result of higher growth and inflation.
I’ve been insulted by Generic Person, which makes my night complete
WOOHOO!
No 55
Suicide and self-harm is for cowards and dolts. I am neither.
Glad to know it GP (58). We were getting worried about you.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Generic Person ,or should that read Geriatric Person is none other that Peter Costello, filling in time whilst he cant be bothered rocking up to parliament, he is moon lighting on pollbludger, trying to remind us all what the Liberals stood/stand for, god know, regular punters have no idea these days.
Oops should taht have been taubular for GP’s benefit.
GP “Geez, the intellectual rigour around here is of infantile proportions’
Then tell me what was th highest outlays to GDP % attained in any of Costello’s 12 Budgets
Then also tell me over those 12 Budgets collectively with tax scales , which income group received th highest tax reduction in both % and dollar terms
When answering , don’t throw figures out of your head , Federal Trasury figures ar indesputable , so time for you to put up intellectualy
“Geez, the intellectual rigour around here is of infantile proportions.” And you being here does nothing to change that.
Brenda’s big rise in the PPM wouldn’t have anything to do with him dragging out those poor dog food eating pensioners again, this week would it? demanding Kev give them a pay rise NOW so that when they get one in the next budget he can claim credit?
Seems last boost the Fibs got was when they ran with the lie that mean Mr Rudd was taking away the Pensioner and Carer’s bonus.
Lordy I hope we don’t get another run of protesting pensioner strip shows!
and notice you avoided my #44 post demonstrating Liberals policy bankruptcy
“Every government will have higher tax revenue than the last – it is a mathematical certainty as a result of higher growth and inflation.”
56 GP, So the Liberals are being obstructionist in the senate because..?
No 61
Prove me wrong Gary, don’t think of amateurish retorts.
Vera: even better – Nelson decides to live like a pensioner for a week, and starts eating dog food.
Well GP, proving that the intellectual rigour around here is of infantile proportions is an opinion and is mighty difficult to prove.
No 65
What’s your point steve? Labor wants to supplement its tax revenue (which automatically rises with growth & inflation) with additional taxation. He has no mandate to increase taxes.
69 But Howard and Costello did have that mandate?
Progressive, he can take a bag of Chum for a crispy snack on the next road trip he does with a truckie!
Be careful, Generic Person. You have just strayed into territory you should have stayed well away from. If you actually, really, think suicide is for “cowards and dolts”, I will humiliate you into the next century.
Generic Person, it is your sort of arrogance that sent the Libs into exile last year, still nice to have a liberal supporter on the site. they are an endangered species these days
I’m sure we could list things Howard did that didn’t have a mandate. Did he have a mandate for example to forgo some promises after an election, you know, the non – core promises.
No 61
Wealthy people contribute the highest proportion of tax revenue and thus any tax cut will certainly benefit them the most by virtue of the magnitude of tax they already pay.
It’s all well and good to say “tax cuts for the rich” bla bla bla, but the fact is that in 1996, the highest tax rate was applied at just $50,001. Such repressive tax regimes punish people for working harder and thus it doesn’t matter what the looney left say, the reality is that the effective marginal tax rates which apply today are far more equitable.
No 72
Humiliate away.
Hi Vera
back to your earlier point , polls now r as irrelevant as ones last week when gilligans were swooning An analogy … Howard as an example had say 20 vunerable seats & could afford to lose 10 & still win Maverick has about 12 vunerable seats & needs to win 10 and 2 he can afford to lose but those ar specific 2 States only with small E/V’s Not a good hand
As to posters Vera , some Gilligans float in here …but note some with “other names” , some never went to Gilligans regularly if at all but ar Gilligans but warmth of affections to me ar consistent but then I’m pretty affiable sort of
Oiliness has $350 million in ‘lobbyists donations’ to mavericks 85 million so advertising money difference is persuasive , but then we hav Kevin07 at 56 to 44 !
No 70
If you’re referring to the GST, yes they did have a mandate. Howard went to the 1998 election on that platform and won.
…”the highest tax rate was applied at just $50,001. Such repressive tax regimes punish people for working harder..”
GP, this is exactly the anomaly that the Medicare surcharge Bill is to iron out and the Liberals are opposing it in the senate.
Ron @ 61, that was a great effort, but “intellectually” has two “L” s before the Y.
And Generic Person, I’ve just realized who you were in another lifetime. Welcome back Candles from the Oz Politics days. How’s the family restaurant business going?
No 79
It’s not an anomaly. The idea is to promote as many people as possible to procure private health insurance, which is perfectly reasonable. Labor’s crusade against the Medicare surcharge will effectively cause hundreds of thousands to flee to the public system which is bursting at the seams thanks to continued mismanagement and underinvestment by the State Governments.
Generic Person
I asked you policy questons in #44 and Federal Treasury outlays to GDP in #61 to demonstate Howards historicaly high taxing based on on offical Budget figures
Now you can not disengenuously claim ‘hurt’ from me personally as an avoidance to my questons without appearing to evade my qustons
81 And not helped by a billion dollars ripped off the health funding to the states by Howard and Costello.
O.k. Generic Person, for starters,
substantiate your proposition that suicide is for “cowards and dolts”.
Do you know what substantion means? Have you done any philosophy at all? What’s your definition of a coward, a dolt?
No 82
Ron if you expect me to engage with your argument, cite the sources and I’ll be happy to oblige. I’m not going to reread the budgets from the last 12 years to satisfy your whims.
The fact is that the claim by Labor that Howard had the highest taxing government in History is a dishonest election slogan that should be ignored.
If you dispute that the rich should not receive tax cuts – then fine, that is your prerogative. But note that you’d effectively be supporting a situation whereby the highest marginal tax rate applied at $50,000. Congratulations, you are killing your own.
Ron I’ve never been to Gilligans, tend to stick close to home, but i’m glad they’re treating you well over there, lol
Yes Oils will most likely win, and the yanks are welcome to him, as you say we have Kev who just keeps on keeping on! yipee!
No 84
No, I don’t know what “substantion” means, because it is not a word.
No 80
Not the slightest idea what you’re talking about mate.
GP, you forget to tell us why road funding was 50/50 with the states at the start of the Hoard/Costello juggernaut and wound up with the states paying 60% for every 40% of Commonwealth investment.
Oh Yes, very cute, Geriatric Person.
Enough already.
No 90
I am not elderly Harry.
Vera , never been there , they come here in disguise th butterflies
GP It might be best for your own peace of mind if you could just move beyond denial and accept that your pinup boy lost the last election – big time. Now Kevin Rudd is calling the shots and according to the latest Newspoll that’s just fine with 56% of the electorate. It’s called democracy, a concept which after twelve years of Howard, you may not be very familiar with.
Generic Person
plus 29% figure IS in Budget papers , read them , research , don’t talk of top of head with ‘rubbery’ figuresHe achieved Dr Cairns ratings
As for tax scales Howard is first PM to redistribute income TO th rich A pregressive tax scale was in place in 1996 which even Malcom Fraser in 7 years largely left th relativities untouched for differing income groups whay Howard did was to CHANGE th relativites between tax cscales giving th HIGHEST % reductions on those specific tax scales to rich Its caled wealth re distribution to rich , which is consistent with Howard’s consevative Liberal tax agenda , of which GST was worst redisrtribtion to rich in both scales & in goods & services purchased in lieu of former sales tax scales
Again all graphs ar clearly shown in Budget Papers , look don’t pontifficate
Sorry William. Didn’t see your message before I sent #94.
No 95
Sorry Ron, again I can’t specifically address what you’re talking about if I’m not given a reference from which to look. I am not necessarily saying your figures are wrong, but I cannot truthfully engage if I don’t know what you’re look at.
That aside, you’re forgetting that Malcolm Fraser had disastrous problems with tax evasion. The GST – on which Howard won an election – is a much more efficient tax because it taxes consumption that grows annually with the economy. It is distributed to the states who generally spend it on the provision of public services.
Again, you might say that it is a redistribution to the rich, but the fact is that it increases the incentives for people to work harder. If you think 50,000 per annum should be taxed at 46.5%, then be my guest, but that is outrageously unfair and it totally contradicts your “working class” platform.
No 94
Lefties keep bringing that up, but I have perfectly accepted that the greatest prime minister in history is out of office. I am glad that Australians are servicing his pension.
I think we need some light humour
check out the cartoon
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pet-food-diet-a-shaggy-dog-story/2008/09/08/1220857456741.html
thats simply a function of Howard picking up bracket creep , rather than indexing th scales , effect of which is as wages increase a larger surplus drops into a higher tax bracket for which Howard ‘kindly” returned PART ONLY as aleged tax cuts Your incentive to work argument is a liberal philosophy flawed wheen this is accounted fo As said figure is 29 to GDP , easy to check , it was a record matching Cairns
“but I have perfectly accepted that the greatest prime minister in history is out of office.”
Well finally we agree !! yes Gough is doing well
Good one Ron (101).
Darn , actualy I made a rare gramatical error, I should hav said greatest living ‘oz’ PM , of course every historian agrees John Curtin was our greatest ever PM…exept Blainey
No 101
LOL. Have to admit you got me. Good call.
just trying to help your arguments as a friend
And on that note of good humour all round I’m off to the sack. Night all.
seee you Darn
Thanks Vera
Just saw your Pensioner’s cartoon in #99 , touche
Of course Pensioner’s econamic problems & luxury ar tax at equal ends and Brendan’s politcal antenna is diferent to mine It would hav been LAST tax measure I’d hav opposed whether it was sensible or economicaly sound or not , just do not understand politcal strategy there at all…nor that lite weight Fieldings
I don’t get this argument about the Medicare surcharge levy.
If removing it will discourage people to take out private health insurance, thus raising premiums, why didn’t its introduction REDUCE premiums?
Instead, since it was introduced, we have seen dramatic rises in these premiums, to the point where even the Howard government had to intervene.
We also saw increasing – not decreasing – pressures on public hospitals, with it being common practice (acknowledged) for private health patients to not declare their status.
And passing strange that a party who supposedly stands for individual choice punishes people for exercising this.
Zoom excellent points. The Liberals are always in favour of people’s right to vote Liberal. Other choices are less free. They are against people choosing:
- to go to a public school
- not to have children
- to control their own reproduction
- to marry somene of the same sex
- to act responsibly for the future of the planet
- to want adequate information about almost any area of government
- to oppose starting a war
- to exercise their right to join a union
- to have freedom of assembly for that union
- to exercise their right to protest against a visiting foreign politician they disagree with
- not to believe in a religeon
- to have an Australian as head of state for Australia
If we keep going down the Liberal path, we will be back in the middle ages, with large busineses in the role of robber barons.
On narratives:
1. Newspoll data shows that the Oz population still does not get the OO fixation with narrative, high-falutin’ speechification and style, over substance. OO Editor’s Memo to staff: ‘Spin wheels harder guys, all those stupid people are simply not getting our wisdom’.
2. ‘The Liberal Party as a Gutless Rabble’ narrative is starting to come under internal stress. Some of the libs have apparently twigged that rather than gaining government they are more likely to lose their seats at the next election. It has occurred to them that presenting month after month as a party with all the electoral appeal of a headless chook is doing some long term damage. Result: the knives are out, the whispers have started and the numbers are a-countin’. Costello has been told sell his book and make a decision by October. Turnbull is playing the loyal ‘Who me?’
3. There seems to be a narrative *grin* that Nelson is a nice guy because he personable, smiles a lot and is a hapless loser. When it came to the exercise of power, when he had some, he was not always such a nice guy. Unless I have got the wrong Minister, he was involved directly in some denial of funding attacks on academics who would not toe the Party line, resulting in some damaged careers, some long term damage to academic freedom and, indirectly some damage to democracy in Australia. (I acknowledge it was half-arsed compared with the systematic bastardry meted out by the Bush administration, particularly to scientists who were inclined to suspect that CC posed a threat to humanity.)
ABC radio reportes that abbott is “dismayed’ by continued poor polling
maybe its starting to sink in that the public dont like the fibs and their policy stances
Socrates
worstchoices was the beginning of institutionalised serfdom and still most fibs deep down believe that it should be policy
Ronster
You’ve been very quiet on Garnaut’s new selling out to the climate change sceptics, which he calls “realism”. It looks like Bolt has got to him. Rudd has a choice to make now. Does he go against the scientists and side with political expediency, or does he show some leadership? Do I even need to ask what the answer to that question is?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html
No 110
Socrates, we already have an Australian head of state: the Governor General has been an Australian citizen since 1965. The High Court has already ruled, as early as 1907, that the Governor General is the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.
They (the Libs) still believe that Australia’s boom was entirely due to them, it had nothing to do with the Global economy which enriched just about every Country except Zimbabwe and Nth Korea. Just as now, with the collapse of many financial institution, will effect the rest of the World.
When the Nationals (Country Party) wake up that they should become a separate party and be independent like the Democrats and the Greens they will become more irrelevant.
Diogenes @ 113
Well, you will get your factoids from that tredoid Age rag.
Thank goodness for the OO which has yet another statistically-based CC analysis, this time of the IPCC authoring and peer review processes. It turns out that the consensus of 2500 scientists on the IPCC ‘primary claims’ in fact received ‘little support’ which came from ‘a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers’. In case we can’t read the small print, the subbie has provided the following headline: ‘Climate case built on thin foundation’. To cut a wordy story short about 100 IPCC scientists are leading the other IPCC 2,400 scientists (and, by implication, most of the rest of the scientific world) by the nose.
Of course, in the interest of balance, the OO does not make the point that the sceptic case is built on a relatively thinner ‘foundation’.
On a more serious note, from a narrow, business-specific point of view, some Australian businesses will benefit from ETS, some will not be affected, and others will be best served by migrating overseas. How does the Garnaut ETS address the latter category?
No 113
Garnaut is not selling out to the sceptics – if he were doing that he would be proclaiming that anthropogenic climate change is a fallacy. Not so.
Bishop and Minchin are those that would bring back in WorkChoices++ under a different name. And I do recall Nelson saying that we should be able to get to a situation where employees can negotiate without the need for union representation. This was after the demise of WC. No doubt that idiot Hendy keeps the fire burning there.
Some like Bishop, Minchin and Abbott refuse to admit that they had anything wrong. They just think the Australian people just don’t understand properly. Every worker becoming an independent contractor tendering for a job, looking after their own leave, sick leave, super etc is just so much better. Gee people could simply group outside of offices each morning and wait for the foreman to choose what they need from the crowd.
The polls continue to say that Labor is the only acceptable government.
No 118
Thomas, if people choose not to engage a union to represent them, then they should not be persecuted because some nanny state thinks they need extra protection of a union.
In principle, besides a set of minimum standards, the market should be able to operate as free as possible. That said, Workchoices added too much regulation to industrial relations.
tp
maybe we should rename the fibs “the artful dodger” party
No 2
salute her maj every morning do we, or just a quick tug of the forelock
Yeah, because everyone knows that people’s labour is the same as a barrel of oil, and should be traded accordingly.
and the human jellybaby maintains his stoic ignorance
” said problems in the US economy were affecting the economies of other countries, including in Australia.
But he said the policies of the Rudd Labor government, which won last November’s election, were largely to blame for Australia’s economic plight, ABC Radio reports.”
http://news.theage.com.au/national/costello-slams-govt-economic-policies-20080909-4cer.html
No 2
Is he one of your heroes still, or is the cold light of day showing him up for the buffoon he was?
No 121
Imbecile. Minimum standards would preclude the treatment of human labour as a barrel of oil.
No 122
Gusface, I thought the buck stopped with Dudd. Seems not given that he deflects blame at every opportunity.
No 2
“Imbecile. Minimum standards would preclude the treatment of human labour as a barrel of oil.”
Under Worstchoices a barrel of oil was worth more than a fair days work and the fibs would have set up a market trading “labour contracts”
wonder who the imbecile is now No2
GP says @ 114 “Socrates, we already have an Australian head of state: the Governor General has been an Australian citizen since 1965. The High Court has already ruled, as early as 1907, that the Governor General is the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.”
I don’t know what court case he is referring to, and therefore I don’t know in what context the Court used the expression “Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth,” but GP must know that “Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth” isn’t the same thing as “head of state.” To whom did the new GG swear allegiance last week? Herself? No, to the Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. The expression “head of state” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, but these paragraphs do:
“1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called “The Parliament,” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth. ”
“2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.”
Thus, the Queen is at the pinnacle of Australia’s constitutional arrangements, although she has delegated all her powers in respect of Australia to the GG. Note that the GG holds office “during the Queen’s pleasure.” That is, the Queen can dismiss the GG if advised to do so by her Australian PM. What kind of head of state can be dismissed by another head of state? Or does GP think we have two heads of state, like Andorra and San Marino?
The Howard government was the highest taxing in history, and as a proportion of GDP they still hold that record even against the Rudd government.
And the Howard government didn’t contest a single ALP-held seat in any by-election in their 11 years – Gippsland put Rudd in front by 1 in less than a year!
Oh what short memories we all have.
Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth is the same as Head of State.
R v Governor of South Australia [1907] HCA 31
Read it at your pleasure.
GP @ 1
Agree, not that I care a bit about the pain the libs are experiencing. It is good to see them spilling their own blood for a change. But, compared with that of the Iraqis, it is not even real blood. Just a bit of lib angst compared with that of the hundreds of thousands of injured and dead Iraqis, and the four million or so Iraqis who have left home since they were invaded with Howard at the helm.
The libs’ have several big problems: Leaders who cannot, or will not, lead; followers who suffer from serial gutlessness;, and a messiah complex.
As a result they are failing in their primary tasks: They are incapable of keeping the Rudd Government up to the mark, which is needed right now, and should be sharp right now. Keep them on their toes. The libs are also incapable of presenting as a serious alternative government which is needed for the sake of our democracy.
But there is a positive: The time out the libs will generate with their approach to leadership and policy development should give them plenty of time to reflect on their performance in Government and to SIEV through their consciences, if any.
No 127
Bill your argument is wrong.
No 129
I always laugh uncontrollably how leftists proclaim to be bastions of freedom and human rights, yet simultaneously criticise the liberation of Iraq from a brutal and despotic dictator to the extent that they argue it should never have occurred. Shame on them.
@130
Like the Libs, you scream it is wrong but fail to explain how.
I seem to recall that was in relation to the Education revolution. Nice attempt to put words in his mouth though. Try again…
@131
The end does not justify the means.
Almost 1 million dead by US hands.
Should we all believe in capital punishment too?
No 132
Bill, if you had the dilligence to read the preceding comments in this thread, I have already explained the fallacious nature of your argument. The problem is your partisan rancour is impenetrable.
I will look up the case, but I don’t believe for a second that the High Court in 1907 would have held that anyone other than the King was Australia’s head of state – if indeed they accepted the proposition that Australia was an independent country, which prior to the Statute of Westminster they might well not have done.
In the meantime, GP, if the GG is Australia’s head of state, what is Queen Elizabeth with regard to Australia? Why does our “head of state” swear allegiance to her?
113 Diogenes
I think Garnaut’s done the right thing. A lowish target sure, but far more importantly a short timeframe. Like it or not Governments work in election cycle timelines. Tell them we want a 60% reduction by 2050 and they’ll ignore it. They know that they’ll be long gone before anybody calls them on it.
Tell them we need 10% by 2020 however and they start to think in election cycles.
Hell, if I had my way it would have been 2% by 2011 then 5% by 2014, 10% by 2017, etc.
Make a government accountable within a single term and things will happen.
@135
I see nothing of the sort.
No 133
Dario, I’m repeating what Rudd said himself during the election campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfe2Q6Sj4IU – on hospitals
As PM:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=3&ContentID=94477 – on the economy
Looks like you Labor hacks are intellectually lazy.
GP
Your terminology is incorrect. If you said AGW is a fallacy, you would be a CC denier, not a sceptic. The sceptics are still waiting for the science to make their mind up one way or the other, hence their prevarication and lack of serious action (like Mr Garnaut).
BTW As appalled as I am with myself but I found myself agreeing with your arguments about the “luxury” car tax. I can’t think of a single reason why it’s a good policy. If it was based on emissions and petrol consumption, I can see why a Ferrari or Maserati should be taxed more highly but it’s not. It seems to be a cheap political stunt based on class distinction, with the pathetic comeback “You just like helping out Posche and Ferrari drivers” being the standard response to pointing out that it is without merit.
(I should add that I drive a 89 Corolla before anyone accuses me of being self-interested.)
No 136
Adam, it is not a question of what you believe, it is a question of what the High Court clearly enunciated in its judgment. If you are too lazy to read it and are too blinded by the claims of an arrogant former PM, then so be it. But don’t be so absurd as to put words into the mouth of the High Court. In 1907, it was presided over by judges who were the founding fathers of our constitution, which makes them highly authoritative on the issue of determining who is our head of state.
No 140
Whilst you are right to point out the incorrect terminology, the reality is that those that subscribe to the Climate Change religion label anyone who questions, criticises or rejects the science as a “sceptic”. Both sides are guilty of this.
Whilst I am undecided myself on the issue of AGW, I do find it deeply unsettling that scientists are proclaiming that the “science is settled”, when the whole discipline of science relies on testing the accuracy of hypotheses on the current facts available. Nothing in science is ever truly settled: a theory is only settled until another scientist disproves it.
This is just moronic. Why does the DFAT protocol page clearly state that: “Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II” http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/Protocol_Guidelines/15.html
Did they put that up there as a joke? Are they trying to trick foreign governments into making elementary protocol errors? Or maybe they are just waiting for you to correct them with your reference to irrelevant 1907 court cases?
How are you going to get your law degree if you can’t even pass year 12 politics?
So do you believe that creationism is still in with a chance, and that we are just waiting on evolution to be disproved?
Stick to referencing irrelevant case law; science doesn’t seem to be your thing.
No 143
ShowsOn, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not have jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of the constitution. The High Court does.
The only moronic argument here is the use of an inaccurate DFAT website to disprove my contentions.
No 144
ShowsOn, where have I said that creationism is more valid than the evolution? Both concepts are merely theories, and those who subscribe to either school of thought are merely doing so based on their own opinions. I for one am not a religious person, but I have no problem with both theories being exposed such that students can make up their own minds. If you are honestly going to say that the science is now settled on how the earth came to be, then there is no point arguing with such stupidity.
Congratulations Generic Person
you’ve switched a monachy vs republican queston to a 1907 case muddying th herring waters with a legalistic point of diference as to what we hav Incidently no problem to me if you support a monachy
Can you tell me when a GG is appointed , does th PM consult or advise Queen of England beforehand
Anyone who thinks that Rudd is a communist is a fool.
And the reason the High Court has never had to make a determination on who Australia’s Head of State is is because it is completely obvious that it is the Queen, her heirs and successors.
If the Queen isn’t our Head of State, then that means she doesn’t do anything, and is another reason why Australia should be a republic. So you are either wrong, and we should be a republic, or you are right, which is even more reason why Australia should be a republic.
So ring them up and tell them to correct their erroneous webpage. Please make a recording of it, I want to hear them laugh at you.
OK GP, I have now read the case. The Court was discussing the disputed South Australian Senate election of 1906, a matter I am quite familiar with. The Court, in discussing the correct procedure for filling Senate vacancies, said:
“The Governor, as the officiating Constitutional Head of the State, is accordingly named as the person to whom the notification is to be given, and the notification must be regarded as addressed to him in that capacity. So, in certifying to the Governor General the names of the senators elected, chosen, or appointed the Governor must be regarded as acting in the capacity of the Constitutional Head of the State, being in that capacity the proper channel of communication with the officiating Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, the Governor General.”
The key phrases are of course “acting in the capacity of” and “officiating”. OF COURSE the GG and the state Governors “act in the capacity” of, and “officiate” as, heads of their respective jurisdictions, because the powers of the Sovereign have been delegated to them under the respective constitutions. That doesn’t derogate from the Queen’s status as head of state, and certainly no-one in 1907 thought so.
As I noted above, the Constitution makes it clear who the head of state is, without using the expression. Do you seriously think that Sam Griffith and Andrew Inglis Clark intended to displace the Queen as head of state? Every first-year law student knows better than that.
There is one thing that is fact. The GG is the Queens represtentative.
That would be the Queen of Australia – our Head of State.
Apparently whoever is our Head of State automatically gets Australian Citizenship, something that I think should be revoked.
You implied that ANY scientific theory can potentially be over turned by another theory (which is stating the absolute obvious). I implied in my response that SOME theories are just supported by so much evidence that alternate theories would simply have to be MODIFICATIONS of existing theories, rather than complete rejection of said theory.
The fact you can’t even recognise the point I made is evidence that you do not know what you are talking about. So please, stick to irrelevant case law, it is more entertaining.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It can not be tested or falsified (year 8 science 101). Thus it should not be treated as a scientific theory, thus it should not be taught in science classrooms.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain “how the earth came to be”, it attempts to explain speciation. So this statement is just meaningless or misleading.
Amigo Ronnie & Vera,
His oiliness is slip sliding away. Is a bit rich his campaign complains about the Mooooooooooosey being a treated like a celebrity candidate.
A pot calling a kettle here. he is the one who started it as a celebrity candidate especially after being “endorsed” Ophray.
Being immune – at least for today – from the wiles of GP, I can only marvel that you all bother to respond to him.
With these trolls, nothing is settled, everything must be re-argued from the ground up (e.g. “Who is really our Head of State?” “Is Rudd is a communist?”), and anyone who disagrees with them is called old-fashioned twit names like “dolt” and “imbecile”.
No point arguing with them, yet argument rages. They’ll never concede an inch, never argue rationally, never answer a question, always set out to cause maximum offense and disruption.
As I wrote above, my head is particularly clear today, so I’m not biting. This post is not in response to GP, but more in response to the utter pointlessness of arguing with him or anyone like him (they’re probably all the same person anyway).
He sounds like a political karaoke duet between Joe Hockey and Andrew Bolt… and about as much in tune with reality. Ignore him and he WILL go away.
GP, he never said ‘the buck stops with me’ in relation to the economy, and that article proves it. Nice try again though.
He is the future of the Liberal Party remember.
GP
It’s true that science is endlessly “improving” itself and that old theories are discarded. But that doesn’t mean that the old theories don’t have any utility, just because they are wrong.
Newton’s Law of Gravity is wrong but it’s correct in 99.999% of cases so it still has great usefulness. Almost all advances use it, rather than calculating based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Climate change is obviously much less “scientifically proven” than gravity. But I think that current theories of AGW are 95% likely to be right (which is what the IPCC says). Something that is 95% likely to be correct is a pretty good bet. If, for example, astronomers said that a meteor was 95% likely to hit earth and kill us all, we would try to blow it up, pray, build shelters etc. 95% is good enough to act on.
Could you show where the High Court has determined that the “Sovereign”, as used in that 1907 ruling, isn’t the *actual* head of state? If they have done so, then “Sovereign” isn’t the word they should be using.
I’m sure we all know the line about how arguing on the internet is like the special olympics.
Much of this thread has gone past “debate” into childish picking on each other; claims, and counter claims. Much of the time about things that happened in the past: as far back as 1907!
Here’s the case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1907/31.html
See for yourself. The judges of 1906 would have cut off their right hands before they wrote a judgement in any way derogating the status of the King as head of state. GP is just pulling our chains as all smartarse Young Liberal prats like doing when they are bored.
Or a simpler question, why is the Queen (her heirs and successors) referenced in our constitution 26 times if she has absolutely no role in our system of government whatsoever?
Did the framers just put the monarchy in there as a joke? And 100 years later, DFAT copied the joke onto their official protocol webpage?
Maybe. Another explanation is that he actually believes the stupidity that he spouts. There are Liberal M.P.s who believe the same thing. I received this email from Cory Bernardi after he said that Kevin Rudd wants Australia to become a “North Korean” style Republic.:
”
Thank you for your email regarding the republic debate on 20 April.
In response to your question, the Australian head of State has been recognised by successive governments as the Governor-General, an Australian appointed by the government of the day.
Once again, thank you for your correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Cory
CORY BERNARDI
Liberal Senator for South Australia
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services
“
Finns
Palin is an idiot. They can’t hide her for two more months. Her first gaffe proves it. She has not even the most basic idea about the economy. She somehow thinks Fannie and Freddie were run by the taxpayers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html
Adam, the judges distinguish the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth and the Sovereign. They are not one and the same thing, at least by my reading.
Costello is out bad-mouthing Australia today. I suppose this is not “talking down the economy”. Merely “reciting the truth”.
Funny how it’s the truth when Libs say it, but it’s destructive self-indulgence when Swan or Rudd say it.
What I would like to know is why Cozzie’s had 10 months to pipe up in Parliment and yet hasn’t said a word in that place. He saves his commentary for the Coward’s Castle of an overseas destination.
Qu’elle gutless wonder. Always was, always will be.
Generic Person
1/ Can you tell me when a GG is appointed , does th PM consult or advise Queen of England beforehand ? (my #147 queston you may hav missed)
2/ re CC you said in #142 “Nothing in science is ever truly settled: a theory is only settled until another scientist disproves it.”
Thats alittle circular , one may never get to an end on anything that way , so perhaps I should ask you with th 3700 scientists ,…what level of probability of there collective certainty of CC would be acceptable to you ?
Oh dear. The Sovereign is the Queen, her heirs and successors! That is what distinguishes a Monarchy, or constitutional Monarchy from a Republic!
Didn’t you do at least ONE political philosophy subject at uni?
GP, they do indeed “distinguish the Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth and the Sovereign”. They say:
“It is not easy to see how, in such a case, he [the Governor] could perform this duty without dismissing his Ministers and finding others, and that power is manifestly one the exercise of which could not be reviewed by any authority but the Sovereign.”
Thus the Court is clearly aware that the Governor is subordinate to the Sovereign, and they do not mean their use of the expressions “Constitutional Head of the State” and “Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth” to derogate in any way from the status of the Sovereign as head of state. Ever since Australia has been a state, it has had only one head of state, the Sovereign.
I’ve never understood why “constitutional monarchists” want to fudge this point. If I was a monarchist, I would defend the institution of monarchy, not try to deny its existence with transparently spurious arguments and deliberate misrepresentation of court judgements which they apparently assume no-one will bother looking up.
And why does the Govenor General have to swear loyalty to the Queen of Australia?
Yes, he is dealing in semantics. But also if you read earlier replies, he implies that he thinks Creationism counts as a scientific theory. So he actually doesn’t know much about the protocols of the scientific method.
Of course. Because if they are arguing that the Monarch doesn’t do anything, then that is just another reason why we should be a Republic.
There’s no reason keeping someone or something in our constitution if it doesn’t do anything.
GP @ 131
You were ‘laughing uncontrollably’ – perhaps a bit of sober reflection would be more useful? It could dwell on: body count? exile count? homeless count? the number of orphans? the number of jihadis generated? a generation of kids deprived of schooling and thoroughly traumatised? the destruction of a nation’s infrastructure? I must have missed something.
You create a straw man: ‘lefties who proclaim to be bastions of freedom and human rights’. I didn’t proclaim any such sententious rubbish. I would as soon accuse someone of being a bastion of ‘callous, unthinking and hypocritical tory support for a murderous and unjustified invasion for selfish national interests, human rights be buggered and the human toll be buggered’. Regardless of perspective, it is a style of discussion that does not really work very well.
GP, having had a look at your posts, I see that you are clever enough to know that the Iraq War was never about removing a murderous dictator. Another straw man.
Instead, the Iraq war is clearly an on-balance judgment. Howard/Costello got the balance judgment wrong and the Iraqis paid a far greater price for this mistake than they ever paid under Hussein, and with the same level of personal choice in the matter – none. It is true that a major consideration here was in relation to what was happening to Kurds and to Marsh Arabs. Both groups were urged to armed rebellion by the US. Both groups covered by US air power. The Kurds being financed, armed and advised on the ground by US ‘advisors’ and were in active civil war against Hussein. It was a bit like Ossetia, the Russians and the Georgians and the US – but to some that would merely be another opportunity for uncontrollable laughter.
True, Hussein was a murderous and evil dictator who used chemical warfare on his own citizens. There were no civil rights. True, he deserved to be removed from office. But, hang on, given that he was such an evil character, why had he previously been so well-supported by the US? As were many other murderous dictators with long histories of support by the US? As are many of the non-democratic arab regimes currently supported by the US? Clearly the Iraq War benchmark for action was not the murderous nature of the dictator, or the lack of democracy, or the presence of non-existent WMDs, or the supposed but non-existent support of Hussein’s for jihadis or even, really, the suffering of the people- given the horrendous toll during the war, and given that the pre-war sanctions was causing wide-spread malnutrition amongst Iraqi kids even before the war started.
So, despite some bull shit retro-fitting by Howard/Costello/Bush, that it was all because Hussein was evil, the nastiness of the dictator was really not what it was all about, was it?
No 169
Why would Their Honours refer to the Governors-General as the constitutional heads of state/commonwealth if the Queen, in their view, was the head of state?
Whilst the Sovereign has superior rank, she is not deemed as head of state otherwise the judges would have explicitly stated that she/he was. The judges specifically contrast the role of the Sovereign with the role of Head of State/Commonwealth.
No 172
Remember that Kevin Rudd supported the war in Iraq. At the end of the day, if you want to criticise the value of the war, criticise Bush. Howard was merely acting on the advice provided by the CIA. If that evidence was fabricated or manifestly wrong, then the responsibility is solely in the hands of George W. Bush.
GP 173:
1. I already dealt with that question.
2. No they wouldn’t have, because (a) that wasn’t what the case was about, and (b) no-one in 1907 had ever suggested otherwise.
It’s not my fault if you have no understanding of Australian constitutional history.
Diog, [Palin is an idiot] – She maybe an idiot. So is Obama because they came from the same factory.
Obama was a creation of his campaign machine: Young, attractive, articulate, media savvy, inexperience, style over substance and “different” namely Black. Created especially to win over the Left, Liberals and Blacks.
So the McCain camp simply copies the same template: Young, attractive, articulate, media savvy, inexperience, style over substance and “different” namely Female. Created especially to win over anything but the Left, Liberals and Blacks.
Spot the difference.
You answered your own question; the words “constitution heads of state/commonwealth” mean something different to “Head of State”.
Um, no. They didn’t have to say the Queen is the Head of State because everyone who isn’t stupid knows the Queen is the Head of State (or rather at that time the King). Only stupid people debate this point, because they don’t have any real arguments for saying why our Head of State should be determined by birth right alone.
Do I have to do ALL your reading and comprehension for you?
Think of it like a picture. We have a document called the constitution that is up the very top, below that is the Head of State, currently the Queen, below that is the Governor General, below him or her is the Prime Minister and all the cabinet ministers, below them are all the other ministers, below them are the House of Reps and the senate (together on the same level), and below that is the population of Australia who elect people to parliament.
GP, Rudd did NOT support the war in Iraq. You are either very ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
Hansard 18 March 2003:
Mr RUDD (Griffith) (4.44 p.m.)—Of all the questions being asked today by the parliament and the people of Australia in this great debate on Iraq, the most simple is perhaps the most profound. That question is: why? Why war? And why is Australia in this war? If, on the day that the Prime Minister of Australia takes the nation to war, the people of Australia are still asking themselves that question `Why?’, is it any wonder that we are now a nation divided?
The tragedy is that we need not have been divided, because the history of this place is that we have always striven to maintain a bipartisan national security policy. But there comes a time when bipartisanship is no longer possible. That time has come. It has come because this government has walked away from the consensus that has governed the national security policy of this country for a quarter of a century following the withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam. Under that consensus, Australia maintained the centrality of its alliance with the United States, the centrality of its adherence to the UN collective security system, and the centrality of our strategic engagement in our region. These have been the three pillars of Australian national security policy for the last quarter-century. They are the three pillars of Australian Labor Party national security policy. But, under this government, two of the three pillars have collapsed: our policy of strategic engagement in the region and now, with this unilateral policy on Iraq by the Howard government, our policy of adhering to the collective security system of the United Nations. It is for these reasons that our bipartisan consensus on national security policy has collapsed: because you on that side of the House have abandoned it—and have abandoned it comprehensively.
I come to this debate as a longstanding and passionate supporter of the US alliance, an alliance formed by Labor in 1941, an alliance that has delivered great benefit to this nation, to the region and to the world, and an alliance that continues to deliver great benefit. I say—and many would disagree—that America has been an overwhelming force for good in the world. There was the stabilisation of Europe after the war, the stabilisation of East Asia in the post-1975 eriod and the world’s dependency on an open American market to drive the world’s prosperity. America has not been a perfect superpower. We remember Vietnam, we remember Chile and we also now remember Kyoto. But measured against great powers and superpowers in the history of humanity, America has been among the most benign in its use of its great power. That is why today it causes me great pain as a longstanding friend of America to fundamentally part company with this administration’s policy on Iraq and the policy of global military pre-emption on which it is based.
Discorrere con certe persone e come lavare la testa all’ asino.
Some people believe what they chose to believe, and rational discussion with them is a complete waste of time
ADAM
You ar amongst a nest of far left anti American hordes of posters here , who regard that Rudd speech praising USA with horror , and treat Putin as an equally benign peace keepr of liberty & human rights…hence my overwhelming popularity
Yes Ron, I know that.
The point about the Rudd speech is that despite his strong support for the US alliance he did NOT support the Iraq War. Opposition to the war was and is ALP policy, and he like all ALP members, including me, is bound by it.
No 181
I stand humbly corrected. A careless throwaway line on my part.
So you are choosing to admit to being very ignorant as opposed to being a liar? Plea accepted and noted for future discussions.
Brenda can relax for a week. Allbull’s having a holliday.
“Turnbull takes break, Nelson takes heart
MALCOLM TURNBULL has dropped a subtle hint – by taking the week off and going to Europe – that he is not about to make a grab for the Liberal leadership.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/turnbull-takes-break-nelson-takes-heart/2008/09/08/1220857456747.html
No 183
No I’m not admitting to abject ignorance. Reading up on the situation at the time, I had confused Crean’s notional support for the war with Rudd. You’ll note that caused some outrage in the ALP caucus.
one of many it would seem
No 186
Dario you have not the competence to even recognise that Rudd said many a time that the “buck stops with me” and pledged to “end the blame game”.
Crean also opposed the war, moron.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Leader of the Opposition) (2.44 p.m.)—The Prime Minister today, in a reckless and unnecessary act, has committed Australia to war. The Prime Minister had his moment of truth, and what did we see? We saw capitulation and subservience to a phone call from the United States President. This is a black day for Australia and it is a black day for international cooperation.
Why do you keep making ridiculous statements which I can refute in one minute?
No 188
This is what happened according to loony left site:
“Speaking on ABC television on March 23, Crean declared: “The government’s decision to commit them [the troops] was wrong but we’ve got to be realistic about this. They are there, and what we’ve got to hope for, in the current circumstances, is that their task is completed quickly and successfully.”
In other words, on paper, the ALP continues to declare publicly that the war is “wrong”. In practice, however, it has no intention of insisting on the most elementary demand of any party opposed to the war: the immediate withdrawal of Australian special forces troops, warplanes and naval vessels from the Gulf.
Crean’s comments raised a few voices of protest in Labor’s ranks. Harry Quick, a backbencher from Tasmania, declared that “all hell” would break loose in the ALP caucus. But the predicted battle never materialised. Meetings of the shadow cabinet on March 24 and of the full caucus the following day fell right into line. Labor frontbencher Mark Bishop told the media that Crean’s remarks “have the overwhelming endorsement and support of his colleagues.”
Crean baldly insisted that there had been “no change” in Labor policy. But, when asked by the Greens to support a motion in the Senate calling for the immediate withdrawal of Australian troops from the Middle East, Labor Senators insisted the word “immediate” be changed to “safe”. And in a revealing indication of where the Greens are heading, the party agreed to the change.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/alp-a01.shtml
I also might add that Crean evinced an intention to support the war if the UN approved.
“World Socialist Web Site” ?!!?
So presumably it is alright to quote loony right sites as a reliable source of info about John Howard’s statements and beliefs?
1. Opposition to the war without UN approval was and is ALP policy and was articulated by Crean, Latham, Beazley and Rudd in succession.
2. Yes of course. If the UN had sanctioned the removal of Saddam’s regime the ALP would have supported it, just as we supported Gulf War I. But the UN didn’t approve it.
So you support your arguments by refering to sites that you think are loony?
Time to get a new argument.
http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/0/PA000170.htm
{[i] Under international law and diplomatic practice, the Governor-General is the Australian Head of State. Soon after Federation, on 8 August, 1907, the High Court of Australia ruled that the Governor-General is the “constitutional head of the Commonwealth” and the State Governors are the “constitutional heads of state” : R v Governor of South Australia [1907] HCA 31; (1907) 4 CLR 1497; see this column, 9 January, 2007, “High Court resolves Head of State debate.” }
http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1392&Itemid=1
I think these two quotes are self explanatory.
In reference to dealing with the sates, not the Economy. Should we have taken everything Howard said on Immigration as referring to the Economy?
Was it UN approved?
In any event:
The false information which underpinned the invasion of Iraq was produced by the United States. Australia relies on US intelligence on such issues under the ANZUS alliance and as such Howard can hardly be held responsible if the information turned out to be false. Blair and Bush? Yes, I agree with any criticism with respect to them.
That said, I believe the UN should be abolished such that the sovereignty of nations can be maintained.
They actually aren’t “Head of State” because that term means something different to “constitutional head of government” The reason the Queen is our Head of State is because she is born into that role. The only thing above her in our political system is the constitution itself.
But if you insist that Queen has absolutely no role whatsoever in our system of Government, that is another reason why we should 1) become a Republic 2) Excise all references to “queen” from our constitution.
LOL
says a lot for little johnny’s standing in the world if as Generic would have us believe Blair and Bush knew the information was false but kept the fact from Rodent!
Hello Generic Person
I asked two questons in my #167 , one re Monachy & one re CC , which you may not had a chanse to reply to
Can I now add a 3rd queston re Iraq now , can you tell me whether Crean , Latham or Rudd hav ever said they supported th intial invasion of Iraq by USA ?(please do not include th post FA invasion status just so I understand whether you ar suggesting Labor ever supported th invasion itself)
No 198
Yes, it is easy for republicans to say that constitutional change is easy, but there is deep division in the republican movement as to which model to pursue.
Scorpio, I already dealt with the false construction being put on the 1907 case, see above.
No 167
1. The involvement of the Queen is merely a formality, much like the Governor General. Indeed both the Sovereign and Head of State are benign given that they both act on the advice of the Prime Minister (notwithstanding the 1975 crisis).
2. I accept what you’re saying but are you not concerned that scientists are subscribing to the AGW argument dogmatically? Chastising any opponents as morally contemptible? That is not science, that is religion.
Adam, I realise that. I was just adding my little bit to demonstrate how GP and most of the rest of his kind are so adept at re-writing history to justify their ridiculous arguments.
Loved the way you tore apart the proposition that Rudd supported the Iraq adventure.
Hello amigo FINNS
#154
yes oiliness , our Croweating doc from Adelaide like others , does not respond everytime we ask th simple queton …seeing ANY Democrat POTUS will be a NON Bush so what positives apart from being NON Bush , will oiliness in policy bring to table…we hear th anti Repug stuff , but where’s th pro stuff
Of course our Doc gets “energised” everytime a women with reel “ticker” is mentioned vs oiliness , first it was Hillary now th lady , always with quotes to quote from those ‘fair & balanced newspapers Huff women’s and DailyKos
Just give up now GP. You’re not having a very good day.
GP, if you keep running backwards at the pace you are at present, you are going to end up back at the starting line or fall in a ridiculous heap.
No 206
Dario, you are still imbecilicly denying that Rudd pledged that the buck stops with me.
On Iraq, let’s be clear: Labor accepted the proposition that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to regional security. We NOW know of course that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were lying about Iraq’s WMD, but we didn’t know that in 2003. Labor did not accept the left’s view that Bush was an evil madman and the war was all about oil, US imperialism etc etc. (Latham of course did hold that view but it was never party policy.) The sticking point for Labor was the lack of a UN mandate to intervene. That’s what distinguished this war from the Gulf War. Labor supports the UN and, given the evidence before it about Iraq’s WMD, would have supported a war in Iraq had there been a UN mandate.
Hardly, I’m denying quite validly that he ever said it in regard to the economy, which was your original accusation, and one of many of yours destroyed utterly in this thread so far.
Guys and Gals… the election was last year. The Republic Referendum was about a decade ago.
Why are you fighting them all over again, and with GP to boot?
He’s never going to concede any point you make.
Generic Person
“No. 167
1. The involvement of the Queen is merely a FORMALITY, much like the Governor General. Indeed both the Sovereign and Head of State are benign given that they both act on the advice of the Prime Minister (notwithstanding the 1975 CRISIS)
“Formality” ? yes but it is also a fact it occurs Republicans want to remove that ‘formality” , when our PM Liberal or Labor appoints a GG to a position within OUR Country , NO ONE outside our Country gets ‘consulted or advised” beforehand and a suitable sovereign ‘oz’ only replasement for that is not unreasonable Comment ?
Secondly th GG has enormous residual powers so position is not a fish & chips store keeper responsibility , they were used in 1975 to dismiss a democratic Government so they ar not academic , they ar reelso lets not pretend GG position is ceremonial alone Republicans believe whatever or however a Heead of State is appointed/elected , those GG proven reel residual powers warrant appontment by a PM without consulting a non ‘oz” resident Comment ?
Generic Person
“2. I accept what you’re saying but are you not concerned that scientists are subscribing to the AGW argument dogmatically? Chastising any opponents as morally contemptible?”
I never chastised you but having been ‘chastised’ myself by th hordes I now ‘unchastisable’ and unisultable so lets get to issue raised in your first sentence in 2. You did not answer my queston :
with th 3700 scientists on th IPPCC ,…what level of probability of there collective certainty of CC would be acceptable to you ?
3/ You also haven’t answered my queston in #200 can you tell me whether Crean , Latham or Rudd hav ever said they supported th intial invasion of Iraq by USA ?
GP did concede that he was wrong about Rudd supporting the Iraq war.
Ron
Clearly, the best reason to vote for Obama is that he is not Bush or a Republican.
McCain comes the closest of the Repugs to not being a Republican so he’s sort of in the race.
Finns
Obama is not an idiot, but I’ve always thought this “new politics” stuff was a load of crap. You win by showing you are the better candidate. Part of that is to highlight the weaknesses of your opposition. He’s been fighting with one hand tied behind his back.
Palin’s record on just about everything is terrible. She is grossly hypocritical and Obama needs to attack her for it. She’s up to her ears in pork, but is against pork. She’s championing disability, but cut special education programs by 60%. Her daughter is living proof that abstinence education is the reason the US has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western world. She flip-flopped on the Bridge. She raised taxes and put her town into $21M debt. The list goes on forever.
Diogenes,
That Palin contract is down to 4.1. Obama is down to 54.0 (and the debates still to come) on Intrade. Its over my friend – better get in now before it really goes bad with the start of the debates on 26 September.
On Climate Change, this thing is meant to be a national emergency, earth in the balance etc etc.
If that premise is true why is our Federal Government going to reduce emissions by 10% or 0.9% per annum? Is this profiles in courage?
No 212
Ron, I wasn’t accusing you of having chastised me, and nor was I trying to chastise you in my post. I was referring to the IPCC and the UN and other CC zealots that accuse sceptics or deniers of being morally contemptible. I find that an obscene argument for a group of scientists to make.
As for the 3700 scientists on the IPCC, I am still undecided. I am not a qualified scientist and thus I can’t make proper scientific arguments one way or another. But from what I have read, I am currently unconvinced that humans have enough understanding of how the climate works and the extent to which humans have influenced climactic patterns; and I am even less convinced that taxing the hell out of citizens to solve this “problem” is appropriate.
No 214
Diogenes, the fact is that Palin has actually been in government, made real decisions and takes responsibility for her decisions. Obama’s best claim to fame is heading a community organisation. Obama is in no position to criticise when he has even less experience.
12 years in senate legislature counts for nothing GP? I guess McCain is in trouble too then…
No 216
If we accept that AGW is a clear and present danger, anything Australia does unilaterally will not achieve anything. It is a global problem and unless there is a fruitful and binding global agreement that includes the USA, China and India; we may as well kiss our economy and living standards goodbye.
ESJ
Given that there is already a target of 20% renewable energy by 2020, Garnaut is basically saying we should do nothing.
No 221
Diogenes, are you intent on murdering our economy?
Did Labor vote Yes to go to war in Iraq
if I get all my news from in here, they didn’t
Didn’t Howard get his briefs from ASIO and the US
Just like Beasley with Rudd as foreign affairs minister
GP
Having less experience doesn’t mean you can’t criticise. It means that the criticism is a little easier to rebut but it can still be valid. I (or a journalist) can criticise Rudd, Palin, Bush or anyone and have a valid point which weakens their position without having been a politician.
Australia is responsible for 1% of global emissions, so nothing we do or fail to do is going to make much of a material difference. But it will make a POLITICAL difference, because it restores our international credibility on climate change, which was zero under the Howard denialist regime. We can therefore now argue credibly with the US, China and India that they must make serious cuts to emissions. Australia has a lot at stake here because we have an environment and thus an economy which will suffer more than most if the current predictions on climate change are correct. Now it may turn out that they are NOT correct, but that’s not a chance we can afford to take. I am agnostic on the science but very clear on the politics.
No 225
I accept that Adam, but frankly we should not be imposing egregious burdens on our economy that no other competing nation faces. All we are doing in shooting ourselves in the foot whilst competitors reap the rewards. I am adamant that if the Government truly believes action is necessary, then it should not impose burdens until an international agreement materialises.
But that is a circular argument. If no-one leads, no-one will follow. BECAUSE we have more at stake, we must take a leadership role, even if it carries short-term economic costs.
I might also add that the objectives of the ETS will be negated given that the government intends to compensate people and corporations for the cost burden.
This is why I am reluctant to place any support behind the issue. In my view, the government could achieve much more by earmarking billions from the surplus into Solar power stations and other renewables, removing the means test on the solar subsidy and other initiatives. At the moment, all we’re getting is a lot of bull and bluster about the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, yet nothing material has been achieved. If Labor truly is the party of climate change abatement, it should start putting its money where its mouth is.
Adam
Unfortunately, every nation will look after it’s own interests. And if someone asks the leader “What if everyone thought the same way you do?”, the answer will be Yossarian’s immortal reply “Then I’d be a damn fool to think any different.”
No 227
Sorry, but given the vital part that mining exports play in our economy, the economic-costs in the short term are significant.
Europe has been leading on this issue for some time, but even they have failed to make a dent in their emissions growth with an ETS. All it is doing is redistributing wealth like a de facto tax. So it is a meaningless platitude to pretend that Australia can lead the world, when others have already moved before us yet we are no closer to a global agreement.
No 229
“Unfortunately every nation will look after it’s own interests.”
Never a truer word spoken.
Generic Person
“Ron, I wasn’t accusing you of having chastised me, and nor was I trying to chastise you in my post. I was referring to the IPCC and the UN and other CC zealots that accuse sceptics or deniers of being morally contemptible. I find that an obscene argument for a group of scientists to make.
As for the 3700 scientists on the IPCC, I am still undecided. I am not a QUALIFIED scientist and thus I can’t make proper scientific arguments one way or another”
Generic Person , my qualifications ar year 11 unlike many here so thats no reel reason , we can all read & assess by selecting proven experts in a particulor discipline and excluding all others on that subject , then assessing objectively what they actualy say Otherwise I’d be quoting you one of your bastions of ‘right’ philosophies opinion that CC is manmade ^ reel….Uncle Rupert said unambigoously quote ‘th earth deserves th benefit of th doubt”
But I would never rely on Uncle Rupert for any arguments , just threw that in , what you should ask yourself is that these 3700 scientists ar UN , come from most Countries on globe , they ar best of best , science predictions is and cann’t be by definition 100% on a future event as complex as CC , AND any opinion those 3700 IPPCC would give therefore will lean on a ‘consevative basis and not a reckless basis , BUT there predictons those 3,700 from UN’s IPPCC
say 95% probability on CC being reeel , is manmade , is caused by CO2 etc , will cause temperature increase from 2 to 4 degrees , and list consequenses of that
95% probaility of cetinty is laymans terms 100% , now of course there ar CC deniers & some very minority of scientists outside IPPCC who disgree , BUT no one of them hav ever produiced 000’s of pages of scieentific data to suport there claims …resulting in a minority civilian CC deniers (in ‘oz’ per last Newspoll 3% , with 97% accepting CC) There is never 100% agreement about anything in life I note you hav not said you ar a CC denier but were unconvinced Perhaps you could go though th 000’s of pags of 2007 4th Report of IPPCC & make your own assessment or research that “27 square km ice berg’ that broke from Artic ice last month that previously ha been attached for 3, 000 years , yes 3,000 years or maybe take Uncle Ruperts advise
What I can tell you is that EACH of th 4 IPPCC Reports hav showwn a deteriorating CC picture , and latest intrim one in July 2008 on last ice age melting rates being quicker than previously estimated is worse news , there’s about 27 metres higgher world wide sea level contained in North alone
Ron, the most instructive piece I have read on Climate Change is that written by Don Aitkin in March this year:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aitkin.pdf
Aitkin is particularly scathing of the IPCC and if what he says is accurate, it is cause for concern.
Diog, Obama is running a really pathetic campaign. What happens to the energy, excitement, optimism, hope, change for the better, new politics etc. He looks lost and so unsured. Obama is on Mogadan, sleep walking thru this campaign. And Biden? what has he done.
It is the Repugs that doing all the running, even “dead man walking” McCain has a new lease of life. From Crikey:
The latest polling on CC shows we are past the “Is it real? Yes/no it isn’t?” stage and we’re at the “What do we do now?” stage. Even the Libs except that, at least publicly.
McCain has got his convention bounce. Let’s watch it as it subsides and see how far it falls before we make any rash statements mmm?
No 236
Gary, if you read my comments prior to my mentioning of Aitkin, you’ll note that I have made statements as to what should be done.
As a side note: the polls also says that support for a republic has collapsed too.
Those who criticise the IPCC process almost invariably fail to also mention that virtually all the world’s major national and international scientific bodies and institutions have independently assessed and endorsed the IPCC reports.
I reckon you should repost 155, BBill.
If CC is such a serious issue why is the Labor Government going for a 10% target by 2020?
No 237
The more pertinent point is that Obama’s “bounce” lasted for but a couple of days. McCain/Palin have dominated media coverage for more than a week.
GP @ 233: That statement is a clearly designed troll antagonism.
This is a thread about Newspoll, not about various Anthropogenic Global Warming commentaries by miscellaneous political academics.
{Even the Libs except that, at least publicly.}
Sort of!!!! Latest Newspoll results on this issue.
{THE majority of Australians continue to endorse the Rudd Government’s approach to a carbon emissions trading scheme – even if it means higher costs for them.
Most people also endorse the plan to go ahead with an Australian trading scheme regardless of what other nations do, including the big greenhouse gas emitters India and China.
*****But a majority of Coalition supporters believe there should not be any trading scheme, or at least that Australia should wait until other countries introduce similar measures.}
{On the issue of carbon trading, 88 per cent of those surveyed saidAustralia should introduce acarbon reduction scheme, with 61 per cent saying it should happen regardless of what other countries did.
A clear majority, 58 per cent, said they would be prepared to pay more for energy as a result of a carbon trading scheme, although 50 per cent of Coalition voters were against paying more for petrol, electricity and gas. }
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24316293-11949,00.html
No 243
Andos, the polls have been virtually the same since December 2006. There’s nothing more to be said. Rudd is doing well.
And no, I was not trying to incite antagonism. I am perfectly entitled to voice my opinion just like everyone else. You just don’t like it because it doesn’t conform to the usual lefty circle jerks that often occur around these parts.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Wan’t that just Garnaut’s view? I think the government is still to make a decision
The Republican convention and a major hurricane immediately followed the Democrat convention so it was unlikely Obama’s bounce would last long in short term national poll figures.
More coming out about the way in which Howard distributed larguess & favours to the favoured ones. Turnbull involved up to his neck too.
{JOHN Howard approved a $6.3 million grant to buy a Cape York property as a memorial to naturalist Steve Irwin, although the funding breached government guidelines.
Australia Zoo, which is owned by Irwin’s widow, Terri, should have contributed at least one-third of the cost of the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve under the guidelines.
However, the zoo was not asked by Canberra to contribute anything. }
{Mr Turnbull wrote to Mr Howard, suggesting a “one-off” grant of $6.3million in additional funding to the program be made due to the “special nature” of the proposal.
Mr Turnbull said funding under the reserve program for the property could not be provided without displacing approved acquisitions.
Mr Howard responded by giving approval for a “fitting memorial to Mr Irwin’s life and passionate contribution to the conservation of Australian wildlife”.
Mr Howard told Mr Turnbull to find the funds from existing departmental programs. }
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24316281-5013404,00.html
This could be the “get out of jail card” that the coal industry has been looking for.
{IT has been condemned as one of the main causes of global warming but is coal about to enjoy an extraordinary rebirth as the fuel of the future?
The first power plant in the world that will take the toxic emissions from coal and bury them deep in the ground opens today, carrying with it the hopes of scientists and environmentalists around the world.
If the power station in Spremberg, eastern Germany, is able to produce affordable electricity without polluting the atmosphere, it could mark the start of a new era for a fossil fuel whose days appeared numbered.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is designed to separate carbon dioxide from other chemicals during the process of generating electricity and siphon it off to be buried safely in disused oil or gas fields, where it can be stored indefinitely.
The construction of the new plant by Vattenfall, the Swedish power company, was welcomed by engineers and environmentalists but raised fears that British attempts to develop the technology, which is expected to cut CO2 emissions by up to 90 per cent, may be falling behind.
A competition has been launched by the British Government to encourage the construction of a demonstration coal-fired plant with a capacity of at least 300MW – ten times the size of the German pilot – by 2014. It must be capable of being fitted, or “retro-fitted”, to existing power plants.
However, a decision on the recipient of the government development money is still a year away and critics believe that Britain’s chance to dominate the sector is disappearing.
CCS has the potential not only to be a vital tool in controlling global warming but to win influence and numerous lucrative contracts around the world retro-fitting the technology. }
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24317781-11949,00.html
No 249
Unless you are an aged villainess like Germaine Greer, I think you’ll find barely anyone would care if money was spent on a Steve Irwin memorial. More partisan rancour from you ShowsOn. You are pathetic.
Clean coal! So soon?
Its one of the more depressing aspects of the political debate in Australia, but people on both sides seem to think that its a bit like going to the Footy and just shouting abuse and clever lines at the opposition and the umpire.
This is fine when it doesn’t matter but when we are dealing with an issue like climate change the futility of this approach is shown up. The worlds climatic systems don’t give a fig what some idiot on a blog in Australia thinks.
When I read the level of debate currently in Australia its really pathetic. Some of the people involved on the side of the sceptics should be personally shamed.
We are to generous with some of these imbeciles. It reminds me of the Tobacco scientists, (The evidence is not conclusive etc, my grandfather lived to be 120 therefore etc. ) These tobacco scientists should be tracked down and charged with criminal offences of causing harm etc.
The same should be done with these fraudsters who cliam to be deniers. They should be charged with fraud.
What a convenient generalisation in defence of Honest John
No 2
do yu do this for love or money
just interested
No 253
Well Ms Greer, the untamed beast that she is, was the only Australian that I recall which vocally rejoiced Mr Irwin’s untimely death.
dovif Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Did Labor vote Yes to go to war in Iraq
if I get all my news from in here, they didn’t
Absolutely correct, dovif.
There was no vote to go to war.
Dear so called Generic Person,
Just because the polls are showing a consistent lead for the Federal Labor Government is no reason to use up William’s perfectly good bandwidth to bring up redundant opinions on a subject completely unrelated to the author’s field of expertise, let alone the actual discussion forum on which you are making your statements.
If you want to compare and contrast Professor of Australian Political History Don Aitkin’s opinions on Global Warming and Climate Change with the international research undertaken by thousands of climate scientists, there are plenty of other places to do so.
Name calling will get you no where. You are the one who would seem to be overheating.
No 252
Mr Santamaria, I reject your unsubtle attempts to liken me to a Tobacco scientist. You’d be wrong anyway – the evidence relating to health problems as a result of smoking is broad and reasonably conclusive. This contrasts starkly to the Global Warming debate which is being promulgated like religious sermon.
No 254
I enjoy political discourse.
Hey Generic person (146) is the science settled yet on the whole flat earth/spherical earth thing? Or do we have to expand the science curriculum futher?
Hey Generic person (146) is the science settled yet on the whole flat earth/spherical earth thing? Or do we have to expand the science curriculum futher?
No 257
The psephological discussion has already been had. Unless you are privy to additional polling information, such discussion can really only go so far.
The fact that others have engaged in this discussion shows that there really isn’t any more to say other than Rudd is still doing well and Nelson should resign.
If William makes a direction that all extraneous discussion should cease in this thread, then I’m happy to oblige by his rules.
And how exactly do rejoicing in his death and forking out all that tax payers money against official guidelines become one and the same?
Decisions about spending taxpayers’ money shouldn’t come down to matters of sentiment.
The quote makes it clear that Turnbull was told to cut other programs in order to find the funding – so, in other words, projects which had gone through the correct channels and been found to be worthy were sidelined to fund a decision made in the heat of the moment.
Knowing what I do about these types of funds, this means that people had spent a lot of time, effort and money, probably over some years, to get a project up to approval stage – only to have funding suddenly withdrawn on very short notice.
By definition, having gained the funding according to the rules, these projects were better than the Steve Irwin one.
So, for sentimental reasons alone, good projects were sacrificed for one less good.
Dario,
In GP’s world all things are possible as long as they fit the Liberal narrative.
No 260
Darcy do you have anything worthy to contribute apart from lame put-downs?
Why is it that people fear contrarian opinion? I’m not making a value judgment that one is better than the other, but why is it that you hacks fear people making up their own minds on the evidence that is available?
My science course at school did mention previously held principles, such as the flat earth, but this was complemented with a thorough explanation of why previous thought was wrong. What is wrong with that? So long as kids learn that the earth is round, is it necessarily bad to expose them to alternative opinions that exist?
So very true
Well then, why don’t we take the discussion back to something related to this post: Essential Research’s question on Kevin Rudd vs Peter Costello.
With such a poor response, 27% preferring PC compared with 53% preferring KR, do you think the recent Costello-mania in the Australian media is justified? Do you also think PC is prolonging this hysteria by remaining silent on the issue and using it to sell more books, before finally announcing his retirement before Xmas?
No 264
We don’t know what programs were cut as a result of the funding. Yes it is not within the guidelines, but the truth is no-one with good sense will find it heinously objectionable unless you’re a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Liberal.
GP -”Darcy do you have anything worthy to contribute apart from lame put-downs?”
Pot meet kettle.
That bloody CC. It’s affecting us PERSONALLY now. Just saw a report that CC is causing the plants to produce more pollens and for longer. Thus causing people with allergy problem or hay fever to suffer sooner and longer, eg: me.
The Finnigans: On the other hand, it means that shortly my apartment in North Melbourne will have water-side views! That should definitely increase the resale value.
268 Andos – I think the narrative (don’t you hate that word) is changing. From the OO.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24317502-601,00.html
GP, I know how funding like this works.
Programs were cut which had been approved. That meant:-
(i) that these programs met the criteria;
(ii) that people had put time and effort into making sure that these projects met the criteria;
(iii) that a project which obviously did fill the criteria gazumped others which did.
ergo and hence
- the project that got the money was less good than those that didn’t.
- public money went into a project purely on the basis of sentiment.
- public money could (by definition) have been better spent on other projects.
As I said, sentiment has no place in decisions to do with public money. If the public felt very strongly about supporting the project, there are other avenues they could use to do this.
I am not making a judgment call on anything to do with whether the sentiment was justified.
272 Andos – as long as the buyer owns a boat.
GP et al
Scorpio’s article at 249 is a good example of why the CC debate is all wrong in Australia. Someone mentioned this a few weeks ago (BB I think).
Rudd should not be making all these moaning, “woe is us” noises. He is being purely negative about CC and couches everything in pain and harm minimisation terms. He should be pointing out that Australia is the nation best placed to develop most of these technologies. Carbon capture and storage, geothermal, wind, tidal and solar are all options for us. We’ve got the wealth and scientists to develop these technologies and export them. We should be smart and look at the opportunities that can be maximised by reducing emissions, rather than being relentlessly downbeat.
No 274
I agree, mostly. Although it just smacks of Labor digging dirt up to embarrass the Coalition. It has Albanese written all over it.
The Australian is definitely “King of the Political Narrative”.
I did notice that piece before, and I was wondering what happened to the Costello backers previously so vocal at that bastion of journalistic rigour.
Now I see that “begging Mr Costello to reclaim a leadership role” wasn’t even enough! I wonder who the “senior Liberal” source is…
Possum’s got some good editorialisin’ on this topic too:
“How long will the Libs continue to dither – especially over a bloke that is only popular in the minds of a few hack journos and delusioned party apparatchik’s ?”
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/newspoll-tuesday-very-bad-things-for-the-libs-edition/
276 Diogenes – all polling on this is showing that Rudd’s approach is not a negative surely. It’s not hurting him, the government or putting people off the idea of introducing an ETS. If Rudd didn’t talk about the negatives the bloody media would and they’d couch it in terms of “Rudd is gilding the lily.” you know how those a..holes operate.
No 276
I think Rudd should abandon the ETS for now and simply invest billions in the technologies to reduce emissions. A market mechanism can only work when viable alternatives exist which can be readily and easily accessed.
277 Generic Person – and the coalition would never do anything like that. Of course such a motive doesn’t make it untrue.
No 266
Generic Person, its Brendan actually!
Why so sensitive? What I wrote was not a put down I just wondered whether there was a limit to your contrariness!
My attitude to creationism is the same as your attitude to the flat earth theory:
I would be happy for kids to be taught about it as long as they are given a thorough eplanation of why it is wrong.
BTW, so far the only put downs, lame or otherwise, are by you.
No 279
It’s not perceived as a negative because people don’t have enough information to make a proper value judgment. Once people attune to the fact that everything will go up substantially in cost, things will start to change. Whilst people have expressed no negative feeling toward paying more for energy, it will not be until they start paying the additional cost that they realise the significance of what is occurring and the impact it will have on daily living expenses.
If anthropogenic climate change is the real deal, then I think the government is the best placed entity to act in terms of getting large investment rolling. The ETS is putting the cart before the horse. Invest in the technologies, invent whatever is necessary then introduce an ETS when the world is finally agrees to collectively reduce emissions.
Diogenes,
You are quite correct there.
This country is being fast left behind in the back-wash of other countries scrambling to get to the head of the que in alternative energy sources.
We may very well end up as a net purchaser of these technologies and totally miss the boat in regard to being able to capitalise on what is going to be a mad scramble to reduce green house gas emissions as the rest of the world quickly wakes up to the realisation that immediate reductions are necessary for survival.
That’s not how markets work, GP.
You can’t spend billions of dollars inventing something that doesn’t have a market, and expect it to succeed. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is about skewing pre-existing market forces to make low-carbon technologies more economically feasible, thereby fuelling innovation and investment in carbon reduction technology.
Surely a good neo-con like yourself knows that it’s more efficient to make the market work for you than to try and direct it yourself.
In fact, your idea of “Invest in the technologies, invent whatever is necessary” seems an awful lot like you’re advocating a “command economy”… Communist!
No 282
Creationism can only be proved wrong to the same extent that evolution theory can be proved right. They are opinions. Let children make up their own minds so long as balanced information of both arguments is given.
{Although it just smacks of Labor digging dirt up to embarrass the Coalition. It has Albanese written all over it.}
Sorry GP, you are dead wrong. Don’t you ever read linked articles.
The issue was discovered in a foi application by the mining company which was trying to get approval to mine bauxite on the property.
No, Creationism CAN’T be proved wrong. That is why it is not a scientific theory. Stop being disingenuous.
56-44?
The narrowing! The narrowing!
{Whilst people have expressed no negative feeling toward paying more for energy, it will not be until they start paying the additional cost that they realise the significance of what is occurring and the impact it will have on daily living expenses.}
GP,
This is typical of the current Liberal Party thought processes.
It is treating the people of this country as being stupid and not being able to think for themselves and able to analysise the information that is being provided by a multitude of sources.
Mate, until you and your colle3gues wake up to this, the conservatives are going to become irrelevant to the extent that they will be totally ignored.
No 285
Firstly, define neo-con. You don’t even know what it means or entails. I am not a neo-conservative.
Secondly, Andos, the whole market for emissions is an artificial construct of governments. Either way, whether the technology is ultimately underwritten by government or by a government-created market, the fact is that this is already a massive distortion of the market and is a communist principle anyway. I’m a realist, I can’t change the communist government we have right now, so I’m working with what we have until I can vote them out in 2010.
Furthermore, the problem with introducing an ETS without any equivalent technologies for people to switch to is that it becomes a de facto tax. Alternatives have to exist for the ETS to actually work otherwise people will be paying a whole lot more for energy but the environmental consequences will still be dire. That is why I’m advocating that if the government truly wants to act, it should get the ball rolling on investment into renewables.
In addition, carbon is not pollution and it is totally inaccurate to call the ETS a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. Without Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect, the earth would be stuck in an ice-age.
Finally, what is even more problematic is the fact that the government intends to compensate certain groups and corporations which totally distorts the already artificial market.
No 286
OK, GP we can teach creationism as long as we can also teach pastafariianism (http://www.venganza.org/), for which there is equally strong empirical evidence.
Of course creationism can be proved wrong. Darwin proved it wrong over a century ago, much to the horror of Mrs Darwin.
GP @174
Your view that Rudd supported the war has been adequately addressed by Adam @ 178
As for not criticising Howard because he was misled by the CIA… I had not heard that line as being a reasonable explanation for Howard’s innocence on Iraq.
Howard had a thing about war. It is a great tragedy for Australia that he did not get a chance to have a personal go in WW2, the Korean War, Konfrontasi or the Vietnam War. A bit of a wound (say his balls shot off?), a bit of carrying wounded or dead mates out of the battle area, a bit of psychological trauma, a bit of agent Orange, a bit of friendly fire, a bit of an insight on the difference between the shit, the mud and the blood and the glorious ‘histories’, the sight of a few villages destroyed and a few villagers slaughtered might just have cured Howard of the obsessive militarism that he brought to Australia for a decade. His legacies include participation in two active wars, a lot of the ‘Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie OI OI OI’ style of brainless nationalism, and the fact that we are still in the world’s top 15 or so spenders, in absolute terms, on military paraphenalia.
Anyone who knew anything at all about remote sensing knew straight away that the ‘intelligence’ material provided to the UN by a certain ex Secretary of State did not make any sort of a case at all for the existence of WMD, let alone a case for going to war. It was rubbish. On the other hand, Blix was vilified for speaking the truth; Howard was part of the chorus.
Howard wanted to go to war and he did. Not because of the CIA’s incompetence, not because of George Bush, but because of Howard. He had so bullied the Australian intelligence community that they knew it was end of career, and full public vilification if they spoke out against what Howard wanted to think. The ones who did speak out, knowing what was coming, are some of Australia’s real heroes and I trust that their reputations will be rehabilitated and their careers resurrected under Rudd. I am not sanguine about that.
Howard was excellent at dodging, spinning and weaving. He had more narratives than the OO could point a stick at. He still has his apologists. But history is not going to let him hide from his culpability for the Iraqi civilian dead and injured.
No 290
Let’s just wait and see how everything goes when people start paying substantially more for their energy. When people can barely pay their mortgages and loans now, as Labor like to argue, they reward you with 50% higher electricity, gas and petrol costs.
No 294
Sorry but your assessment of Howard is just an opinion based on your own predispositions against military spending and wars in general.
#293, I thought Mr. Darwin only described the origin of species plus the associated processes and mechanics, but NOT the origin of life. If i am not wrong you were there Mr. Adam, so do tell us about the origin of life.
Generic Person
You quoted Author: Professor Don Aitkin AO, which i did not dismmiss but read before replying , and he does mount a ‘case’ You will recall in my long post of #232 that I acknowledged there were indeed a small minority of scientists who didn’t accept th 3700 IPPC scientists 000’s pages of evidence
Don Aitkin has a research background but as he himself acknowledges is a “historian and political scientist” so whilst am unsure if he fits apple with apple equivalent of specific CC expertise , more importantly his 18 page addres hardly matchs 000’s of pages of graphs & scientific data supplied by 3,700 vs 1
In any event Don aitkin reading his seech is hardly likely to change his mind nor will a science minoritey , but none of them will put up a scientific matching Report rebuting th evidence totality , rather they cherry pick whereas IPPCC data is inter related hence 000’s of volume
And it is this specific abstance of such a ‘full scientific paper’ that those who may be unconvinced , rather than outright CC deniers , ar let down by such 18 page ‘papers’ notwithstanding its general ‘case’
But will leave you with a few thoughts
Firstly , and this is NOT directed at you by way This CC bit originated from a small group in ‘left’ , gradually built up some ‘left’ support , and then big figures like Howard in th ‘right’ labelled CC as a ‘left’ fantasy thing , but those ‘right’ figures having burned there bridges as CC deniers hav been left behind committed anti CC just as science has demonstatrated CC I not fantasy but realitiys many on ‘right’ correctly didn’t dismiss CC originally or if they did didn’t absolutely and hav therefore been happy to see CC as a reality and as a non partisan problem…can assure you most young Libs believe in CC , th ‘young’ ar smart these days , Labor & Libs young supporters & access internet & find out CC is reality
Secondley , Professor Don Aitkins historian and political scientist quote: “A second reason for the lack of good data is that we only have decent and systematic measurements of any consequence for the last hundred or so years” Ron’s response is , Don Aitkin do not make such vague ‘last hundred or so years’ statements , if being scientific be accurate , world scientific temperature measurements actually started in 1850
Thirdly , scientific methodology uses a scale to 100% of likelihood to a scientific finding, the term used reflects a specific range of certainty as defined by a chart As such many IPPCC findings were 75% to 80% , somwe 85% , but th key ones I quoted in #232 were 95%…so it is 3,700 scientists reel reflecton of there scientific certainty using a scientific index , andd that is worthy of your reconsideration in time so you contribute to th solution/action plans as that’s where there’s debate
GP @ 295
1. You have jumped to a false conclusion. Not surprising, considering that you are keeping quite a few bloggers on the hop. I am on the record elsewhere in these blogs as being a supporter for strong spending on a strong military. I have personally experienced the wrong side of the equation. I would prefer something like the Swedish model. Speak softly and politely, carry a big stick, but never use it. It is the reverse approach that I loathe for its counter-productive outcomes and its stupid and senseless waste of lives and treasure.
2. I appreciate your sally using the term ‘opinion’ but it is worth reflecting a bit futher on the term. Your opinion is that Howard was stupid enough to be tricked by the CIA into going to war. My opinion is that he wanted to be tricked. Neither opinion is flattering: a good leader stays out of wars unless forced to do so. Howard was not forced. He wanted war. He got it. History will rightly condemn Howard, despite the best efforts of his acolytes to hide the truth.
Ron, Aitkin’s suppositions are fully referenced. The reason he has become suspicious of the IPCC is precisely as I stated earlier: sceptics are consistently treated with contempt and labelled immoral. That is not reflective good science, it is tantamount to religious persecution. The last part of his article is particularly important: he calls for a Royal Commission of some sort that canvasses as much of the science as possible, headed by someone altogether neutral to the scientific discourse that is currently occurring. He doesn’t abjectly reject the possibility of AGW – he is simply demanding a more rigorous, rather than dogmatic, approach. Can’t say I disagree.
Also, the fact that Aitkin does not present a thousand page argument is beside the point. You can have all the pages in the world but if the data contained therein has been manipulated so haphazardly to be made congruent with the hypothetical consensus, it is a wonder how such data can be trusted.
The point I’m making is that having a contrary opinion does not mean you are immoral, it does not mean you are subhuman and it does not mean you are environmentally careless. If public policy for the next few decades is going to be formulated on this research, it is not inappropriate to ensure that the most rigorous standards are demanded.
Andos, GP, Adam et al
My opinions on what to do about CC are probably politically naive, ill-considered and unfeasible but I would have been happier if Rudd said he’d reduce our tax cut from $30B to $20B and keep the $10B for a CC fund. Industry, environmental groups, researchers etc would be able to tender for the $10B in the same way the NHMRC works.
The money could be allocated based on how much carbon emissions would be reduced by the project, it’s exportability, it’s potential and feasibility. Pilot projects that worked would get more funding in the next round etc etc.
Darwin demonstrated to the satisfaction of all intelligent people that species change over time and that the current species, including H sapiens, evolved from other species. It obviously followed, although I don’t think Darwin actually said so, that all species ultimately evolved from unicellular life and thence from the primaeval ooze. This proved the biblical account of the origins of life and of man in particular FALSE, setting in train the greatest intellectual revolution of modern times.
Someone once said that the modern world was created by three German Jews and an Englishman. With due respect to Marx, Freud and Einstein, I think Darwin was the greatest of them all.
Dio, a tax encourages business to change their act more
No 301
Actually Diogenes, we can do the same without even reducing the tax cuts. It’s my preferred option if we must proceed with this climate change abatement strategy. And it will produce results faster than the distorted, artificial ETS scheme. It will also be simpler.
#302, i would add Mr. Isaac Newton to your list.
174
Howard ignored the advice he received from our own agencies (much of which was received from US agencies – advice that was contrary to the advice given by the hawks on capitol hill) and instead went 100% with Bush who let’s face it was super keen to be a ‘wartime president’.
Howard sent this country to war for political reasons and will forever be condemned for his actions.
No 303
Dario, explain how a business dependent on coal-produced electricity can become carbon neutral if an ETS was introduced right now? There are practically zero viable alternatives. The ETS will simply drive up energy costs and inflation without any real solutions to excessive carbon emissions.
The large base-load investment in renewables has to come from government, or even through a PPP. We’re talking something of the magnitude of the snowy mountains scheme, or even bigger.
Actually, I’d argue that the Government cancel the broadband network and redirect the funds to solar power plants.
Finns
I’d put Newton as number 1 by a mile. I’d drop Freud, who was wrong about almost everything, and add Pasteur.
Oppenheimer et al probably did more to change the world than anyone after Einstein.
I’d expunge Karl Marx from that list and supplant him with Milton Friedman and Frederich August Von Hayek.
This is the best poll result for Labor since the election. Why?
Because the question has finally been asked! The great hope, in fact the only hope (LOL) for the Fibs, Cossie has had his butt kicked. Rudd 53% to 27% PPM.
Poor Generic P, it’s going to be a long long long time in opposition.
Btw, the big bang theory is considered as a creation. There is no other possible explanation for it at the point of singularity.
They will invest in R&D and take it upon themselves to come up with a solution, aided by the government. As for zero alternatives, the same can be said if an ETS was NOT introduced right now… how would that help exactly?
By the way I don’t personally believe there are zero alternatives
Dario
The is no evidence in any other existing ETS that firms have invested in anything other than BAU solutions to reduce emissions.
Thus not actually reducing emissions.
GP @ 300
Phew, I support several of your views here. The stakes on CC are so high that ad hominem arguments have become part and parcel of the debate. Both sides, broadly defined, have indulged. Both sides could rightly claim injury. It was a regular feature of early phase cc debate for individuals who tended to support CC theory to be attacked in a very personal way. Careers are destroyed. It is more of a feature of late phase CC debate for individuals generally sceptical of CC theory to be attached in a personal way. Careers are destroyed. However, being able to point to personal attacks does not address CC theory in a substantive way.
It is also dangerous for proponents of a theory to claim something along the sense of: ‘the science is settled’. More probably than not, science, like history, will never be ’settled’ in the sense of final, or fixed. The notion that the science is settled encourages dogmatism and therefore ‘heresy’ and ‘martyrdom’. While useful for religious thinking, these is particularly helpful in science. Dogma, heresy and victimhood have become big distractors from substantive discussion. Some folk have somehow got the notion that if you are a victim you must be ‘right’. Nope.
Aitkin’s article was useful in that it contributed some thoughtful and a somewhat dispassionate contribution to CC debate. The fact that he is not a scientist is neither here nor there. The real issue is whether his judgment is generally supported by the available evidence.
There are some general approaches to addressing Aitkin’s article.
The first is to have a look at where the herds are at: Various ‘institutes’ think Aitkin is on the money. Most of the world’s established peak scientific bodies think not. But, still, a single voice may be right and all the herds may be wrong.
The second is to have a look at his assumptions. Does he know what he is talking about?
One assumption is that we have only a century or so of temperature data. Wrong. We have quite powerful data arising from ice cores, tree rings and the like.
Another claim is that Climate science only started with satellites and computers. Wrong. Folks were giving it a great deal of thought well before either.
So, Aitkin is a bit suss on his assumptions.
A third test is the basic question about the science on any issue: Is this the theory that best fits what we know? Aitkin does not make any sort of reasonable case for a coherent comprehensive alternative CC theory. His criticisms are useful to test for robustness of CC modelling, but they do not provide a robust alternative.
So, on three major tests, Aitkin has a way to go before I would say, yes, let’s invest a swag of $ into a Royal Commission.
Rudd should link the LCT and the other tax related bits of the budget to the rise in pensions. That money to go straight to pensioners. Let’s see the Libs block them then.
Boerwar, all i can say is hear, hear, as the war widow of a digger who fought in everyone of those wars, from going into Korea as a teenager to Vietnam, he was a proud digger till Vietnam, perhaps if Howard hadnt managed to dodge the conscription he might have then known that war isnt a toy soldiers game, it’s a fools game, it’s so easy to strutt on the international stage, being lauded by an American president, puff your chest out and send our young out to a war to seal a friendship with the said president–in the meantime making sure that your own sons are safely well away from danger, PSHAW! even the monarchy sends their princes into the services AND into the war zone, maybe Howard’s folks wouldnt buy him toy soldiers as a kid and so he spent a good part of his tenure dressing up in combat uniform and trying to address the troops as one of them, remember the acted out play of racing out of a smoky plane–again in full combat gear, BUT of course making sure the cameraman got out first to film the dramatic moment, it’s a pity for him few of us swallowed it, i wonder if he ever realised what those troops said behind his back especially after being ordered to cheer for him.
ok rant finished.
No 315
Aitkin, I believe, is not arguing for an alternative CC theory – he is simply criticising the methods used to support the current theory. At the end of the day, he didn’t discount the possibility of AGW, he just wants to ensure that public policy makers are making the decisions for the “right reasons” based on rigorous unbiased research.
I’m all for a Royal Commission into it – the policies related to climate change are being dubbed the biggest structural change to the economy in decades. If that is the case, then we must ensure that the information upon which we base those changes is as accurate as possible.
No 316
If Rudd was smart he’d abolish the tax altogether, or re-engineer the tax to be based on fuel economy and emissions standards which is far more logical.
With respect to pensioners: I would argue that it is not designed to subsidise lives of luxury. The days of spending your entire life away and then expecting the government to pick up the tab in retirement are long gone.
Generic Person
Your views are valid and you have the right to express them.
Can I just point out that these views are not politically palatable, hence the 56-44 polls that are becoming so ho-hum in recent times.
In a political sense it may be time to change?
Tory governments in the past didn’t believe in superannuation for all workers, that is the major problem in underfunded retirements today. The same as they don’t believe in a decent education for all or universal health protection for all – just the priveleged upper crust.
Generic Person @ 220 -
..[A]nything Australia does unilaterally will not achieve anything. It is a global problem and unless there is a fruitful and binding global agreement that includes the USA, China and India; we may as well kiss our economy and living standards goodbye.
Perhaps, but unless “the USA, China and India” (and everyone else) acts then our economy will be down the gurgler anyway if the predictions on global warming are right. Most of our major tourist attractions will be cactus therefore so will that major industry, the Murray-Darling system which produces most of our food and food exports won’t anymore, most of our cities will be reliant on expensive desal plants for water which will severely impact a whole range of industries. Given the loss of most of our non mining sector economy what will people be doing? How many people will be required to keep the mines working? Will the rest of the world still want our minerals when they are battling the same problems?
But it is probably going to be even worse than that because the climate models almost certainly understate what will happen. All assume a linear progression, but the most likely outcome is that at some point the climate crosses one (or more) tripping point/s and flips into a new, far worse state. Unfortunately, no one knows what that will be which is why the models don’t reflect this.
It also needs to be said that the common perception that the U.S., China and India aren’t doing anything is wrong. Garnaut detailed a host of things that China is doing at huge expense during his Press Club speech and while the U.S. federal government is hostile to the concept, many state and local governments are doing a great deal. India may not be as active but they are still relatively modest emitters. Given that we are doing very little they may even be doing more than us.
.
Generic Person @ 250 –
Unless you are an aged villainess like Germaine Greer, I think you’ll find barely anyone would care if money was spent on a Steve Irwin memorial.
Well then I must be an “aged villainess.” It wouldn’t take me much reflection to draw up a very long list of Australians who have contributed at least as much to society as Mr Irwin did and who have received little or no recognition for their efforts. So what makes his memory worth $6.3 million apart from political gain? Makes me wonder how much a future Lib government will spend of their great hero John Winston Howard’s memorial. A billion? Two? LOL!
.
Bob Santamaria 252 -
It reminds me of the Tobacco scientists, (The evidence is not conclusive etc, my grandfather lived to be 120 therefore etc. ) These tobacco scientists should be tracked down and charged with criminal offences of causing harm etc.
They shouldn’t be too hard to track down. Quite a few have jumped on the CC denial bandwagon. ExxonMobil even hired many Philip Morris consultants to organise and run its CC disinformation campaign. See for example the Guardian’s ‘The denial industry’
So they power company that is setting up this ‘emissions free’ plant in Germany doesn’t count?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080909/bs_afp/germanywarmingemissions
310 Centre
There are a few interpretations of the Big Bang which do not require creation at the singularity. These include fluctations in ratios of matter to anti-matter and collisions between branes in string theory.
No 321
The Liberal Party was wrong to oppose superannuation in the past. It is a good policy, although the system should encourage more employee contributions.
Steve, we do believe in a decent education. The difference is that we don’t believe that the education should solely come from the public. Julia Gillard has finally recognised that the debate has moved along from the days of public vs private. The reality is that every dollar spent on education is a dollar well spent.
Ideally there should be a voucher system where the funding follows the child.
On health, we believe in an adequate safety net, but if they can afford it individuals and families should take out private health insurance.
GP @318
Well, all right, let’s have a Royal Commission into it. But a couple of points.
1. Delaying concrete responses has arguably been the tactical outcome sought by some industry players once they realized the gig was up on persuading most decision makers and the general public that the science was dross. CC is big enough and serious enough not to delay action. So, as long as the Royal Commission does not delay action, fine by me. The funds for the Royal Commission would probably be donated by multi-national oil and coal companies as they have most to gain from getting it right on CC.
2. I would be curious as to your views on TOR and choice of R. commissioner?
3. I accept your general view that it remains useful, and I would add necessary, to test all aspects of CC theory rigorously. Aitkin does raise issues that need testing but they are mainly about process rather than substance.
4. For Aitkin’s views to be anything other than a useful but minor contribution to CC theory, he would need to provide a robust alternative. He does not, so we should go with the best fit, which, IMHO, is AGW.
Dio 301
In many areas of emissions (transport, govt owned infrastructure) thats not a bad idea. A tax and fund to increase public transport provision would help a lot.
However ultimately the bulk of Australian emissions are from private businesses and activity, not government -via coal fired power (over half) and agriculture/livestock (1/3 of the rest; more than transport). So we need an incentive or penalty to make business change its behaviour. Personally I am skeptical about ETS as being the total solution. I still think we should have one, but I think we will need to go further, with direct regulations on the most harmful activities. Of course, any meaningful carbon tax or ETS with realistic limits will create a carbon price which will put most brown coal power plants out of business (including all but the newest Latrobe valley plants). So some people have a lot to lose and will play this game hard.
“On health, we believe in an adequate safety net… ”
Well why did you fail to provide one? Oh thats right Abbott got rolled by Cabinet after the election.
No 328
Crawl back under your rock mate. The safety net is and was adequate. If we didn’t believe in the safety net of Medicare, we would have abolished it. Instead we increased funding and continued the generous pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
GP
If you want to continue this train of thought please consider your recent errors. This is my area of expertise.
Did Abbott say one thing at the election and later change it? Yes.
Put up or shut up.
Judy Barnes @ 317
Thank you. Good rant.
Generic Person
“I’d expunge Karl Marx from that list and supplant him with Milton Friedman and Frederich August Von Hayek.”
Well at one stage I was part of that list , until revisionists took over
Your argument follows Don Aitkins
“The last part of his article is particularly important: he calls for a Royal Commission of some sort that canvasses as much of the science as possible, headed by SOMEONE altogether neutral to the scientific discourse that is currently occurring. He doesn’t abjectly reject the possibility of AGW – he is simply demanding a more rigorous, rather than dogmatic, approach.”
IPPCC scientific research & Reports updates hav ALREADY been continuous with a collective over 3,000 World’s best scientists for 11 years , spread over 34 Reports EACH consisteent conclusions but worser , th last being 4th IPPCC Report of 000’s of 2007 , so hardly think an ‘oz’ Royal commission can beat that on expertise or research hours
Think more important queston is seeing there 3,700 scientific level of certainty index of 95% , would you hav reasonably accepted there findings if index had of been 100% , or ar you sugesting you take not full notice of that scientific index because you’re uncertain whether th 3,700 top scientist’s methodology is flawed
??
No 326
1. I take your point on the issue of delay. I’d say the lead up to the proposed ETS introduction date should be used for the Royal Commission.
2. The terms of reference would be as broad as possible, but essentially entail that arguments from both sides of the debate be rigorously examined, tested and reported on.
As for the commissioner, a former High Court judge is always a safe choice. They are generally predisposed to objective reviews of evidence and have no identifiable link with either side of protagonists.
3. He does challenge the substance, although admittedly not exhaustively (Aitkin was presenting a speech, don’t forget). The issue he highlighted was that the faulty processes lead to faulty substance. His point on the manipulation of computer models is instructive here.
4. I’m unconvinced on this point.
GP I think you are under the influence of conservative propaganda when you told us further up the thread that taxes will double under an ETS.
According to Robert Merkel at LP. The whole Garnaut process comes with modest cost:
“Firing up the handy-dandy spreadsheet, such a change would mean that by 2020 we would be issuing around about 83,000,000 less permits than we otherwise would. Garnaut estimates that the price of a permit (in 2005 Australian dollars), will be $34.50. The net loss to Australia? Around $2.9 billion annually. Say $3 billion, to take into account the effect on the carbon price. That’s in the context of an Australian economy with an annual GDP that already exceeds $1000 billion, and will probably be around $1400 billion in 2020.
If that’s what it takes to convince the rest of the world we’re serious about wanting a better deal, it’s very, very cheap at the price.”
No 332
Ron, we’re starting to repeat ourselves. I’ve already outlined my arguments.
Bloody hell Boerwar 3326
you’ve just conceded th credibility possibility of th IPCC and 3,700 of World’s best Scientists 11 years of work , 4 Reports , 000’s pages of scientific evidence data & graphgs & visuals polar & stellite proofs …in a 30 second blog , and just when Generic Person was being lulled into a consensus
Got lonely under my rock.
GP
Do you think it is better to give $3 billion a year to private insurance companies or to fund public hospitals?
No 334
I don’t believe I said that taxes would double under an ETS. I certainly remember saying that the value of an ETS is null if:
1. There are no readily accessible alternatives for businesses and individuals to pursue. Therefore, the ETS becomes another tax, increases inflation, but the environment still suffers.
2. The government compensates emitters. That goes against the spirit of an ETS and further distorts the market.
—
As I have said, the Government is better off earmarking billions of dollars for renewable energy projects, perhaps in conjunction with the private sector, rather than waiting for the ETS to produce benefits. The evidence in Europe suggests that the ETS has not achieved anything and emissions are still increasing.
No 337
Both.
No 336
Ron, I was not being lulled at all. The IPCC numbers you quote are impressive but at the end of the day, I’m not going to place faith in an organisation that frowns upon legitimate criticism and whose century long predictions into the future are about as reliable as 100 year weather forecast.
Generic Person
I was simply suggesting a Royal commission to ascertain th ‘truth’ about CC despite IPPCC detailed findings is not appropriate answer Those unconvinced need to submit an EQUIVALENT detailed scientific ‘paper’ of equal size to IPPCC who hav made there case
Unconvinced like Aitkin cann’t call for Royal commissions he needs to intellectualy put up equivalent size data to rebut AND NO ONE in unconvinced group ar prared or able to do so and instead rely on imperfect responses
339 If both then why did the funding of hospitals drop by a billion dollars under the Howard /costello government. Say one thing do another GP.
And who (apart from you) says there are no alternatives to pursue for the big emitters?
GP @ 339
Except that is not what happened, funding for public hospitals was reduced in real terms.
Howard was told 9 years before he lost office that health costs would rise by 8% per year and that this was the amount needed to keep our healthcare system working.
What did he do? Barely 4%.
Phew Generic Person sure has some stamina. I wonder if his AWA pays him per post output.
Brenda had a wierd proposal today – link pensions to a “basket of goods” does this mean pensioner should log on to grocery choice to see if they are being ripped off?
Ron @ 336
I think I have a fair understanding of the IPCC process and the substance of CC theory. I have spent years studying CC theory with a great deal of diligence. While neither here nor there, in terms of substance, I have both friends and former colleagues who are part of the IPCC process or who are cc scientists. I acknowledge that I know no sceptics.
The frightening thing from the inside is that they routinely tell me that they adopt very, very conservative views because they have strong fears about being verballed by the cc skeptic mob and realize that they can only lose their credibility once. Hence, and not surprising, the reality, when it arrives, is generally well ahead of IPCC predictions. That is, things melt faster, things get warmer and so on, faster than IPCC predictions.
A classic example is the extent of summer ice melt in the Arctic. Two years ago, an ice-free North Pole was predicted to occur sometime about the end of this Century. One year ago, that was down to maybe 2030. This year, the prediction is down to a 50:50 bet that we will have an ice-free North Pole this Northern summer. That is one hell of a nasty trajectory.
I therefore have no problems with a Royal Commission. If it comes up with recommendations for improving the IPCC process, so much the better. If, as is most likely, it confirms the IPCC substance and all significant elements of the IPCC process, then so much the better. There is a vanishingly small possibility that a Royal Commission would come up with either (a) we don’t know enough to act now or (b) there is a more robust alternative climate theory.
Good science and sound common sense will rule, or we will rue the day.
Comfy under my rock.
AWB wheat scandal nailed NO poliicans and NO Defat people , despire restricted terms of reference
Public with justifacton do not trust lawyers , CC belongs where it is , with experts , ie. scientists , World scientists from most Countrys
Ron @ 349
lol
Fancy not trusting lawyers!
But deliver us from experts!
Democracy being what it is, the voters will determine whether scientists, and/or, lawyers, are right.
And, if the voters get it wrong, reality will bite them in the arse.
Beautiful.
Judy (317)
Rant all you like. You have good reason and I agree with every word you said.
Interestingly, George W Bush also made sure he dodged the Vietnam war draft. Isn’t it always the way with these politician warriors?
It’s a tie between Darwin and Einstein for me.
Marx was important but ultimately wrong. Freud never backed up his claims with empirical evidence, so he doesn’t even come close. Freud’s idea of evidence was simply a series of anecdotes, so whatever insights he came up with were never substantiated. It’s disappointed that in the Humanities Freud is still considered more important than Darwin.
LOL its Dr ShowsOn is it?
And so ShowsON – 10% reduction over 12 years – is this the extent of the ALP’s bravery? What a bunch of frauds, come now be honest – are you a little ashamed?
Ummm, ESJ. The 10% reduction is Ross Garnaut’s recommendation. The gov’t. hasn’t yet nominated their final target.
Darn @ 251. It’s why they’re called chicken hawks.
Um HSO, well its a good chance it’ll be 10% or slighty more (so the PM can claim he is being extremely Churchillian rather than mildly Churchillian) – But really if its a national emergency – 10% over 12 years. Weak as piss.
ShowOn (352)
Don’t you think on a blog such as this we should achnowledge the importance of the ancient Greeks in creating the most important political system ever devised – democracy – which is such an important part of the modern world.
ESJ @ 356
What would be your preferred settings?
Just as a matter of interest ESJ, are you a climate change believer or denier?
356
Edward StJohn
So what level would you advocate? What level will your beloved libs aim for?
324 Diogenes
Who knows for certain? Maybe Mulder was right “the truth is out there”.
We won’t find it in the bible, that’s for sure!
Btw, you do have a broad knowledge of things Diogenes.
Uh, on CC, I think the lib position is wait and see, snipe from the flanks a bit, appeal to whatever populist position is on the boil, but actually do nothing. This policy has chopped and changed a bit. Uh, and reduce petrol excise by 5c a liter.
If the messiah incarnates, this position will be maintained. If they get serious about Turnbull he may stipulate a fundamental change in the libs’ cc position.
Turnbull actually understands that doing a Nero on the global version of Roman warming is a bit short-sighted. It is one reason why many of the libs genuinely fear him.
E.S.J. @ 356. We shall see. However, Churchillian, I don’t expect. He’s a policy wonk.
353 “10% reduction over 12 years”
Still 10% more than your side achieved in 12 years ESJ.
BTW, has everyone, particularly E.S.J. and Generic Person, checked out Possum’s latest on Very Bad Things for the LNP?
Well, that’s a bigger cut than a 20% cut from 1990 levels by 2020 which is what Labor campaigned on during the election. What will the Liberal target be?
6 months to go…
He’s a climate change nihilist. In other words, the same as with everything else.
Yes I think democracy is important, but you should remember that the version of democracy proposed by Plato accepted slavery, and didn’t let women have any voting rights. So it was a good start, but nothing more than a good first attempt.
Apparently there is going to be a Government announcement tomorrow in Brisbane about targets. It wouldn’t surprise me if it is 10% reduction from year 2000 levels by 2020.
HSO @ 365
*grin* Just the thing for dessert. Where do I find it?
It doesn’t matter what Rudd proposes about CC because the Coalition + Fielding will block it in the Senate – the Coalition because they are cynical opportunists who will block everything in the hope of frustrating Rudd, and Fielding because he thinks the end of the world is all part of God’s plan.
ShowsOn. I do hope it gets more/better coverage than Penny Wong’s announcement earlier that the gov’t. would spend an extra $400 million buying water allocations along the MDB. I remain unimpressed with the ABC’s reporting. Such as, who cares what the man who will always be the Treasurer in a hammock, currently looking for a job somewhere else apparently, thinks about what the Rudd gov’t. has done economically? This has run all day. Penny Wong’s announcement disappeared after half a day. Didn’t get a mention on ABC1 evening news.
Boerwar @ 367. There’s a link on William’s site on the side bar to Possums Pollytics.
Well comrades relativism is not good enough – its an earth threatening crisis which will be addressed by a 10% cut over 12 years. What rubbish – you lot should come back when you are serious. And of course that 10% with compensation.
The courage, the statesmenlike qualities, the determination LOL. We are blessed with such a leader as Kevin Rudd at time of crisis
AIC @ 368
If the Coalition stops a ‘reasonable’ ETS with a ‘reasonable’ target in the Senate it must have a major death wish. It will find itself dubbledeed on that one.
HSO @ 369
I noted same and was thinking same. Like, ‘Peter who?’
371 “you lot should come back when you are serious.”
Don’t know that a supporter of a side scoring zero percent in 12 years makes you a fit person to decide what others do, ESJ.
HSO @ 370
Thank you. A tasty dessert, except that it gives me an uneasy feeling that the Opposition will be unable to hold the Government accountable. We all need them to get their act together.
Nope the Coalition should just pass it – obviously the Labor Government has no intention of changing anything. The Coalition should actually pass it or seek to amend for more with the Greens if they really want to frustrate Labor
375 “the Labor Government has no intention of changing anything.”
And the Liberal government changed what in 12 years ESJ?
Oh dear, E.S.J.. Like the courage, the statesman like qualities, the determination of Brendon? Who can’t make up his mind on what the LNP’s position is on an ETS?
Rudd is the leader we have got. He may not be all that’s required to deal with what is beginning to happen re: climate change, but I certainly prefer someone who can mobilise the apparatus of government, and anyone else who cares to contribute, to understanding the problems and tries to come up with sensible solutions, to the vacillating Brendon and a fatally divided LNP.
Nelson is an impotent leader like Snedden and like Snedden in 1974 he will use the Senate as a prosthetic penis. It’s quite possible that like Snedden he will then blunder into a DD which he will lose, whereupon someone with a real penis, like Julie Bishop, will replace him as Fraser replaced Snedden.
ESJ @ 371
Good call ESJ. We will as well be cooked with an Australian reduction of 10% as with an Australian reduction of 0%
10% of 1% is only ever going to maker three differences:
1. it will start the economy adapting. Useful.
2. it will provide a working framework for cranking things up to a higher target. Potentially useful.
3. it will provide a framework for our bone fides the international negotiations now in train. The only game in town and we have some pretty good players in that game.
Ergo, 10% is better than nothing, but if 3 does not cut in, not a whole lot better. In isolation, it will not save the planet.
Meanwhile, we know what the Coalition’s preferred option has been and remains: ‘Do nothing’. Ergo, totally useless.
What was your preferred option again?
ESJ – is that the only policy the Liberals should be following – ‘frustrating Labor’?
Surely there is a more meaningful role for an Opposition to play than that.
(371)
“its an earth threatening crisis”
ESJ, since you feel so strongly about it, how come we heard not a single word of criticism from you regarding the Howard government’s skepticism that the problem even existed.
Re: the pension. Isnt it amazing that pensioners had no trouble surviving under Howard but in the last 10 months have suddenly not coped?
Rudd however has lost the battle on this issue. He and Swan failed to highlight the budget measures, including the increased utility allowance, at the time so let the impression out there that the snubbed pensions, which the MSM and the libs peddled for all its worth.
Now Swan, Rudd and Gillard all say you cant live on the single aged pension. What a stupid admission. If its true, it should be increased now, and you dont need a review to tell you that. I thought the review would examine the adequacy, indexation etc. The government is in a mess with this issue, not that judging by the polls, it is shifting votes at the moment
The whole conservative thinking at present is about defending their do nothing results of the past tweleve years and block any movement from anyone else in the senate. Will not work ESJ, if you are going to play that game you need to have been doing your best while in office.
AIC @ 378
Nelson like Snedden? *wry grin* Crikey. I trust one of Nelson’s advisers has warned him of the consequences.
Andrew @ 382
Spot on.
Boerwar @ 374. I suspect that the Greens are going to be a more effective opposition than the LNP, at least that’s my hope. I agree governments need effective oppositions, but my observation would be the current LNP ain’t it. Isn’t Possum a bottler? And really, E.S.J., you should read it, in order to understand, at the very least.
Andrew, I agree the politics on this is very poor.
Swan and Gillard should answer that they couldn’t survive on the pension AND ENJOY THEIR PRESENT STANDARD OF LIVING.
Obviously people DO survive on the single pension.
Swan et al are leaving themselves open to this kind of exchange:
JOURNO: Could you survive on the single pension?
POLLIE: No, of course not.
JOURNO: What is the minimum you think you could survive on?
POLLIE: Oh, I couldn’t manage on less than $50 k.
JOURNO: So you’re saying the single pension should be $50k?
My old mum said the single pension needed to be increased. When I asked her why, she said so that she could put some money aside for the kids to inherit.
Fortunately, once she put it into words, she realised how silly it was.
Yet again, I feel I have to agree with ESJ. I know he’s being an opportunist but a 10% reduction is pathetic and we all know it (if that is Rudd’s position). It flies in the face of all scientific evidence. If Cossie was PM and he went with it, we’d all be going ballistic at him. I hope we don’t see any double standards.
And as Boerwar said, I think it’s a great DD bill. Antony looked at it a few weeks ago and thought it was technically possible as a trigger depending on how the legislation was drafted (evidently these things are quite complicated).
And Pensions is another area where the tories sat back and did nothing for twelve years and now are screaming for Labor to clean up their mess. Anyone can claim to be a “good economic manager” while they refuse to supply basic services and infrastructure and hand out the savings to their mates.
Dio, has Rudd made a decision yet?
HSO @ 386
I am a bit sceptical about the Greens mounting an effective systematic Opposition. I see them as having some capacity to influence through Senate negotiations but with Mr X, Mr F, Mr Barnaby Joyce, and the Coalition, the Greens are only one of the jostling players there.
I do think the Greens are the only ones with a serious view about sustainability, but, when, for example, I look at their obsession with the lower lakes and their inability to accept that saltwater intrusion was normal in big droughts pre-Euro settlement, it makes me think that they lack agility and plain common sense. I suspect that this ‘icon’ sort of thinking means that they are unlikely to gain general credibility as either a possible alternative Government or as a representative Opposition.
Dario
No. Evidently he’s going to say something tomorrow.
And can I add that all the arguments about what Howie and the LNP did or didn’t do or say about CC are red herrings. However bad their decisions were doesn’t make a bad decision by Rudd any better.
“However bad their decisions were doesn’t make a bad decision by Rudd any better.”
While true Diogenes, I think that the Liberal fanclub trying to preach about the decision making process is a bit much when their only decision was do nothing. Having made that decision they really are irrelevant to the debate. Time to let other voices have a say.
Boerwar, you may well be right about the Greens. I certainly agree with you about the obsession with the lower lakes, though this is something that resonates powerfully with a range of folk from all political persuasions, not always reasonably or rationally. I did note an increased ability to engage with negotiating with the gov’t. on the LCT. Their capacity to compromise is yet to be tested.
zoom and Andrew. Agree the politics is very bad and wonder who the heck is advising them about how to address this issue. It sure as hell wouldn’t be Maxine McKew.
HSO @ 394
Crikey I think we are in furious agreement. Please, what is ‘LCT’?
I think it will be big. Representatives from many big mining companies are flying in for some reason.
Has ESJ taken over the evening shift from GP?
Luxury Car Tax! LCT
Scorpio, I thought Generic Person was an open line covering any Tory with a keyboard.
It’s quite curious; there’s a contest between climate change and human civilisation, and he’s jumped on the side of climate change.
Steve @ 393
Have to disagree with you on that one. Their voice might lack any credibility on the basis of their views being hypocritical and inconsistent with what they did in Government, but it is one of the jobs of Opposition to voice criticisms and the better targeted the criticism, the better job they do.
Here’s hoping they keep Rudd on his tootsies.
Scorpio thanks, I should have known.
I prefer: ‘Porsche Tax’ or ‘Ferrari Tax’ or ‘Lamborghini Tax’ or even ‘Toorak Tractor Tax’.
Somewhere deep inside there must be a smidge of a class warrior in this old carcase.
402 “Here’s hoping they keep Rudd on his tootsies.”
I’ve seen no evidence that they are doing anything of the sort. All their energy and talent is in playing Leadership games of the most unspectacular kind for nine months with more to come by all accounts.
Palin delivers yet again. How the hell can you bill the state for sleeping in your own home. The very dubious legality might squeak through but it undermines the maverick moral high road drivel.
Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews
Steve @ 404
Spot on. They are no good to anyone which is no good for anyone. Can’t have Rudd getting flat feet.
Strangely enough, pretty well everyone who has been published in the MSM who displays a sceptical or anti-cc stance can be linked to this organisation.
Australian Climate Science Coalition
http://www.auscsc.org.au/
How pathetic – all you lot can mount are relativist arguments and at least its better than nothing arguments.
Would Churchill have said to the British people in 1940 look I can save Normandy, its better than nothing? or look I’m not actively collaborating like Petain so a neutrality pact is better than the alternative.
Tough talk – limited action.
At least John Winston Howard didnt pretend to care about the environment unlike this fraud.
Then why are you agreeing with ESJ?
There are a couple of obvious mistakes being made in the analysis of Garnaut’s recommendations.
1. Garnaut is not the Government
2. Garnaut has been successful in having his previous initiatives implemented by Governments especially re Competition Policy.
3. Penny Wong has been careful to not committ to Garnaut’s latest recommendations.
4. As has been pointed out, it costs less to implement 10% reduction than 5%.
What if Rudd and Co went for a higher target than recommended.
Stifles the Greens cries that it aint enough and is still economically responsible.
Stand by for a “We will go to the moon ” moment.
Boerwar, worse than that while they clog up the country’s communications channels with their CC denial and scepticism, it cuts off the voices of farmers, renewable energy companies, community groups and all sorts of people who actually know a little about the topic.
If they took the cottonwool out of their ears and put it in their mouths they might just learn something.
What are you talking about? He PRETENDED to care about the environment all through last year.
Shows On,
It’s the beginning of the ditching.
Dario
I prefaced my comments with”if Rudd agrees with Garnaut”.
“Tough talk – limited action.”
The story of the Howard climate change policy in a nut shell. Twelve years to prove but he got there in the end.
At least John Winston Howard didnt pretend to care about the environment unlike this fraud.
For once i agree with a conservative. It is a fraud that the lame Penny Wong and Rudd are pulling here. I think it is about political will and courage and at this moment the Rudd Government is struggling to work out what it means. Stunts and spin is the game.
Bit like Brumby, who a friend told me went to Port Fairy to tell everyone down there that his Government was to provide funding for a bike path, only to find that the land provided was also earmarked for a gas pipeline. Photo opportunity in the local paper and more spin yes. But in the end the policy is a nothing.
Time for a new type of government in this country instead of the pathetic do nothing, hiding policies and research in commerical confidentiality muck.
I now believe in proportional representation voting in both houses to try to make these people accountable. Who has any idea what the policy deals that our governments are doing with public private partnerships as many of the deals are being hidden away.
ESJ @ 408 and elsewhere
Well, I think I have addressed the substance of your challenge, see above.
I note that you enjoy the retro Churchill thing. Not my sort of chap, Winnie, no loyalty to his mates, confounded poor judgment when it came to playing ships, and quite prepared to sell Aussies down the drain in WW2.
Now, about your position, if any?
Yes Shows on but not for the other eleven years.
ShowsOn412 – Do you need me to explain it to you?
Scorpio
I thought I recognised one of the advisers in your link, Ian Plimer. His main claim to fame is as follows;
That might come back to bite him when he argues in a debate that global warming is ‘only a theory’.
Could someone tell me what policies have come from the policy summit held early this year? Or again was it just another stunt?
That was my point.
No.
Did The Australian Online blow Tony Abbott’s cover? Have a look at this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24317502-601,00.html
At one point it says:
Mr Abbott said today the “bad polls” had dismayed him, but he also later told The Australian Online that this was the fate of a “newly minted opposition” and he had barely taken a look at today’s Newspoll.
Then further down the article it says:
“I just don’t know what’s going through his head. The red carpet has been rolled out for him. He never will be happy unless he has a go,” a senior Liberal told The Australian Online today.
“My position is if Costello’s not available Turnbull, for better or for worse, is the likely alternative.”
It seems to me it is extremely likely that the “senior Liberal” who spoke to The Australian Online is Abbott in both cases.
ESJ,
You have Marky on side. Proves what I always knew, you are an unreconstructed Communist.
marky marky @ 421
Not sure whether anyone is keeping track, but a good question. The summit will end up like the 150+ reviews: easy to take populist pot shots at but likely to result in several good initiatives over time.
There was one initiative which came directly out of the summit the other day. It was for the establishment of a National Organ Donation Authority or some such name with $150 million plus. Inter alia, it will set up the medical specialists who are a critical component of the organ donation process in hospitals.
An excellent initiative, well-supported by the Opposition, should save lots of lives and improve the quality of life for lots of others. Arguably, if the Summit nothing else, it will have been useful.
Oh Gawd… is this bar fight still going?
Kevin Rudd made a huge show and dance out of signing Kyoto (when we already were meeting that “target”. Howard to his credit refused to participate in the charade.
Now Kevin deals with the emergency by if not 10% a game changing 15%. And for the pensioners let them eat dog food!
Your shout BB
GG, just a truthteller that’s all.
ESJ,
How many pensioners do you know? Do they eat dogfood? What have you ever done to make their life better?
Rhetoric is you!
Shows On @ 423
No loyalty. No discipline. No narrative. No policy drive. Know nothing. Fearful. Fretful. Confused. A rabble.
Can someone explain to me why pensioners were doing it so tough after 12 years of the greatest government in Australia’s history? I thought JWH was the best friend the pensioners had ever had.
The Howard government signed it, the Rudd government ratified it.
This makes no sense! If we were making the target, what was the downside to ratifying the treaty?
ESJ @ 427
*grin* You forgot the bit about nuking the Russkis.
I agree with people when i see a comment which has merit. Would never agree with a conservative on social or economic policy. It is conservative economics which is sending this country into a black depressive hole and it all started with Howard than Keating and Costello, Swan seems to have an idea about economics but is reluctant to spend any money, instead letting the finanical whiz kids use taxpayers money (our surplus) to play with. What does it matter if we have a big surplus or a small one. But of course we will spend it just in time for an election- election year of course.
Sara Palin has another skeleton rattling around which could result in a slight hauling back of the Repub’s current momentum.
{A SENIOR Alaska state senator kept an abuse-of-power investigation of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on track, rejecting Republican calls to remove the Democratic overseer of the probe.
The move made it possible that staff of Palin, the Alaska governor, could soon be subpoenaed to testify in the brewing “Troopergate” case, in which Palin is accused of sacking a senior state official for refusing to fire her sister’s ex-husband from the state trooper force.
The case could cast a shadow over Palin, whose choice 10 days ago to be Senator John McCain’s White House running mate shocked the country but also has fired up his poll numbers, drawing him even with Democrat Barack Obama in the race.
Alaska Democratic state senator Kim Elton, chairman of the state legislative council, rejected a call by state Republican representative John Coghill to replace the Democrat director of the Troopergate probe.
“The decisions made by the project director, Senator (Hollis) French, have been appropriate, bipartisan, in line with the charge by the council and unchallenged by any of the principals,” Elton said.
He also noted that the inquiry is being conducted by an independently contracted investigator and not by French himself.
Earlier Coghill had complained in a letter that public remarks made by French made the investigation appear “to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and process,” and he called for a meeting to replace French.
Elton’s reply kept on track the investigation into Palin’s July 11 firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan.
Monegan has alleged that he was removed because of his resistance to pressure to dismiss Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, the ex-husband of Palin’s sister Molly McCann.
Palin rejected the charge, but the legislature launched an investigation of the case in late July, well before Palin was chosen by McCain to join his presidential ticket.
At the time Palin said she and her staff would cooperate fully with the probe. But since she was made the Republican vice presidential nominee last week, seven Alaskan agency heads and members of Palin’s executive staff have canceled or refused to voluntarily schedule interviews with the investigator.
Because of that, French is convening a meeting of the state senate and house Judiciary Committees on September 12 to consider issuing subpoenas to compel them to testify.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24318496-2703,00.html
The pensioners deserve a raise but could someone tell me where they were for last ten years before Rudd was elected or is it because it is a Labor Government in power?
Don’t you watch the news? This problem only started once Rudd took over…
Sorry Grog did not see your comment but i totally agree.
GG 430 – One shouldn’t brag about one’s alms giving.
I’m with your MM – I have no problems with raising the pension; but at least Bob Brown has been on the case for ages; the Libs are living in fairy land if they think this is all Rudd’s fault.
Maybe Rudd should say – pass the luxury tax and I’ll give all the money to pensioners…
ESJ,
Ding Dong the witch is dead!
[One shouldn’t brag about one’s alms giving.}
Especially if they don't give any!
436 scorpio – the Deomcrats will need more than these “skeletons”. In fact they should just forget them. They need to get Palin on her policies and her support for GWB. Going for “trooper gate” or library book banning is just a side show that plays into the Republican hands.
Her lie in her speech about the bridge to nowhere is more important than whether or not she sacked some trooper because of some reason or another.
Scorpio
That little group you mentioned earlier, Australian Climate Science Coalition is the Oz branch of the International Climate Science Coalition. They has a conference this year in New York, the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
I love Sourcewatch!
445 Diogenes, that Heartland Institute just pops up everywhere doesn’t it!
You can argue all you like about CC. but i just think the wheel chair basketball is sensational. they twist, turn, swirl, bounce, charge and shoot much better than Sarah “pain you know where” Palin.
Diogenes Says: @ 445
{I love Sourcewatch!}
Yeah, one good thing about this intertuby thingy is that it has become harder to hide your real intentions or background when you are spruking on behalf of one thing or another.
ESJ,
Is your contribution to ending poverty simply about donating money to worthy causes or do you actually do something in your community to make a difference?
Without being obnoxious your comment implies the occcaisonal contribution to the Salvos or charity of choice is enough.
Scorpio @ 436
Palin’s vicious and corrupt use of Government resources to victimise her familiy’s enemy is not news. Palin is corrupt, but that will not make a skerrick of difference to her religious righteous, anti-choice, creationist, gun totin’, moose shootin’ pro war supporters.
Amongst other things, Palin believes that drilling the north slope of Alaska will help make the US ‘independent’ of foreign energy suppliers. She does not have a clue. Palin embodies the decline of a once-great civilization and is therefore a timely candidate for VEEP.
The Age did a good debunking of the “dog food” business this morning. I agree, and I think most people agree, that age pensioners deserve a better deal. But there’s no excuse for Liberal sniping on this. The standard of living of age pensioners now is part of the legacy of 11 years of Howard. As is the overall budgetary situation in which any significant increase in pensions must be considered. There are nearly 2 million age pensioners in a population of 21 million. Both the number and the proportion are increasing rapidly as the population ages – soon it will hit 10%. If they get an extra $10 a week – a very modest increase – that’s $20 million a week or over a billion dollars a year. Do y’all want to pay the extra taxes needed to fund that? If not, where in the budget do you want it to come from? Schools, hospitals?