I won’t be available to take part in this evening’s fortnightly Newspoll festivities (nor this afternoon’s Essential Research, which Possum tends to be timelier with in any case), but here’s a thread on which you can keep each other informed of the news as it breaks, as well as doing the other things you usually do.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Monday night Newspoll
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
481 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 [10] Show All
GP
Under the scenarios, power will still be generated; coal will still be burnt; products will still be made; crops will still be grown – and there will be economic GROWTH. Therefore more jobs. It will just be done differently in some fields, and restructuring will take place over time.
I’d suggest you read the materials – it would be more productive for your posts than listening to coal industry mouthpieces.
No 446
Yes, I am. I have previously posited a policy of solar panels on every roof in Australia. I also support nuclear power. Don’t make stuff up.
In this situation, if we are to believe the gravity of the conseuqences of not dealing with climate change, massive investment is required to transition our economy to low carbon energy production.
By the time most ETS policies get into full swing, it will still stake several years for there to be material changes. Governments world-over must invest over-and-above their ETS and significantly so due to the actual nature of the threat (presuming the science is correct).
But that is the essential implication – they want the Western world to make the most damaging cuts. The better solution in my view is for the West to set up technology sharing agreements to get as much technology investment in China and India as possible to curb spiralling emissions. Really, if anybody seriously believes in the urgency of climate change action, they really need to be thinking about India and China, not about Australia’s minuscule 1.4% emissions.
No 448
JV, the stuff about restructuring is completely nebulous in all the materials. Even the politicians mindlessly say “green jobs” without actually pointing to real green jobs. They don’t exist and won’t exist for many years, if at all. It is an implicit assumption that they will be conjured from the celestial spirits or some such.
You’re trying to KILL the country with DEBT!
So why do you constantly complain about DEBT if you think that the Government shouldn’t worry about the cost of change?
Why do you support a carbon trading scheme, when such schemes try to solve the problem using market forces? You should just support a punitive carbon tax instead.
Newspoll 55-45 Graphic: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/2jun-newspoll.html
Primaries:
Labor 43 down 3
Liberal 35 up 1
Nat 3 steady (has polled 3-3-3-4-4-5… downward trend?)
Greens 10 up 1
Others 9 up 1
Rudd satisfaction 56 down 2, dissatisfaction 33 up 2
Turnbull satisfaction 40 steady, dissatisfaction 40 down 2
http://www.smh.com.au/national/libs-sit-on-plan-for-flat-rate-20090601-bszo.html
FlattaxChoices?
See what happens when they when a State Seat
No 453
Tanner is being idiotic. Poor form from a pretty good Minister.
Tanner is right. We all know you’d argue that a flat tax doesn’t favour the rich.
The federal Greens have been in double digits more often than not since the 2007 election. They’ve ranged from 8-13%.
No 456
Tanner is wrong. The rich would still pay a higher quantum of tax than poor people under a flat tax system.
Nevertheless, I’m not really in a position to comment on what Turnbull is proposing until I see some more details.
No 457
The Greens are a bunch of economic dunces.
Are you retarded? I’ll repeat what Tanner said:
The rich would indeed pay a higher quantum of tax than poor people. Tanner never said otherwise. Read, comprehend.
And you’re gonna have to deal with them or Labor when you regain government (however far away that is). Can’t wait
No 460
Bob, contrary to popular opinion, I am not retarded.
Tanner is wrong to suggest poor people would pay more tax.
Wasn’t Milne the Machinator rabbiting on about the “Ergas Report” in an incoherent article in Monday’s West?
I couldn’t make head nor tails of what he was getting at, but it starts to make sense now if one looks at it as the first shot across Turnbull’s bow in a renewed Milne orchestrated attack on the Liberal leadership on behalf of Costello.
Even the dopey one with the wobbly boot can see the contents of this report are poison for Turnbull.
No, you are wrong.
And he didn’t say poor, he said working people compared to wealthy people.
No 464
Oh, so wealthy people don’t work? Tanner is simply wrong.
So you consider wealthy people part of the “working class”?
And speaking of Monday’s West, I wish my former member for Swan Hills would shut the feck up – it makes her sound like sore loser that she didn’t get her way in West Swan.
I bet she’s singing this at Karaoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q64jDvTnm8
The fact is that people on the lower tax rate will pay more tax than before, and people on the higher tax rate will pay less tax than before. This what Tanner said, and is the point you are explicitly ignoring. It is an indictment on your argument, or lack thereof.
You can choose your friends, Frank, but not your relatives …
No 466
He said working people not working class.
No 468
bob, stick to hugging trees.
There we have it. No argument to be put forth. Let it be known that GP knows people on the lower tax rate will pay more tax than before, and people on the higher tax rate will pay less tax than before, under a flat tax system. He knows it, but like the Liberal Party, can’t come to say it.
Luckily she is not related
Speaking of Relatives, I have 3 brother in Laws, one is a commited Liberal who only voted once, when my second Brother In Law stood for Labor in Forrest in 1990, while his younger Brother stood in Tangney.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1990/1990repswa.txt
While my 3rd Brother in Law is Liberal leaning, but my sister and I are slowly re-educating him towards the dark side.
Labor 55-45 coalition with no alternative Liberal leader, how crushing for Liberals everywhere.
I’m off to bed, g’nite!
that should be voted Labor once
oh and the other brother in law is indeed related to a former WA President of the WA State School Teachers Union.
Generic Person (Prime Tory Twerp of Australia)
By that logic Australia is ditto because our emissions are far higher per capita.
Australia does have low total emissions relative to China. So does NZ, Portugal, the Netherlands, Grenada, Greece, Bhutan in fact every small country or poor country has comparatively low CO2 emissions But guess what GP: When you add up those small countries it becomes large! The statistic I heard was that 1/3 of global emissions comes from countries that emit less than 2%. Do you know what the old-thinkers say in every one of those countries? “We’re not important after all, so forget all that patriotic nonsense we’ve been shoving down your throat and blame it all on the US and China: its their fault”. Of course by this logic the US wouldn’t be to blame if the 50 states became independent, which is obviously nonsense.
Furthermore it is the Western countries and Gulf States that are the big emitters per capita. True, the environment doesn’t “care” where emissions come from but society and economic do. Economics dictates that clothes and gadgets should be made in sweatshops so naturally China will have some emissions. Yet they still have far, far less than Australia per capita. The ‘Kath & Kim’s’ of Australia are more to blame than their counterparts in China.
I think that your views on a flat-tax rate and on putting the main burden on developing countries are both symptoms of the same conservative outlook that the rich deserve their wealth and sod the poor in India, etc. However through my watermelon goggles it would seem very unethical to force developing countries to drop theirs faster than we do just because we and our allies have economic might. The rate by which countries should drop emissions relative to one another is complex to propose but I guess these two questions must be asked: Where would emission cuts be cheapest? And where would fast emission cuts cause relatively little social harm due to high social-wellbeing? Generally speaking the high per-capita emitting countries are wealthy and so can withstand an overhaul of the economy better than poor countries that would suffer serious unrest (although they do need to make changers too).
OMG, if this kind of rubbish is being dished by one of the better journos.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25572803-5017906,00.html
what insight and analytical value does Lenore Taylor provide here? sigh.
No wonder nobody would pay for anything out of NEWS & MSM.
New thread.
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 [10] Show All