-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
not that his hypocrisy need to be proven anymore as it is continually evident, but i saw somewhere his quote after Alan Jones suggested Giilard should be thrown in the ocean- he defended continuing to go on the show because of it's large audience. The Q&A audience is a lot lot bigger. - the best figures i can see is Jones has about 150,000 listeners in NSW (Abbott said Jones has 500,000 listeners- im guessing another mistruth). not sure how many nationally. Q&A has about 1,000,000 viewers.
Looks like the knives are coming out of the draw and being sharpened up... While I wouldn't be at all unhappy to see the back of Shorten, I think this kind of leak also risks the ALP's ability to get carbon pricing back onto the agenda, and gives the Libs the opportunity to do the only thing they do well... attack something.
=====
Labor's carbon working paper leaked: who's making trouble for Bill Shorten?
Katharine Murphy Deputy political editor
@murpharoo
Wednesday 15 July 2015 11.38 AEST Last modified on Wednesday 15 July 2015 11.58 AEST
The question of the political morning is not why is Labor persisting with carbon pricing, but who, exactly, is making trouble for Bill Shorten?
The News Corporation tabloids on Wednesday morning published the thunderous revelation that Labor is privately working up options consistent with what it has been saying publicly: the ALP will retain a commitment to carbon pricing in the lead-up to the next federal election.
The reflection on the leak I’ve just given you is the reflection of an ordinary person who follows the debate closely, and who doesn’t come to carbon pricing from a point of view that it’s the public policy equivalent of cancer.
But whoever shared Labor’s working paper with the Telegraph knows full well they are not helping.
Post-2020 emissions target may not win bipartisan support, Bill Shorten says
You don’t leak to the News Corp tabloids if you want positive coverage for Labor’s as yet unfinalised climate policy. You leak in order to provide fresh meaty fodder for their completely incoherent but powerful culture war against That Wicked Carbon Tax. Over at News, the Wicked Carbon Tax (which wasn’t actually a tax, but why sweat the small stuff?) is always just waiting to jump out of a cupboard somewhere like a masked villain in a pantomime, shrieking “boo”.
Carbon tax. Carbon tax. Echo. Echo. Cue Tony Abbott: “Labor’s wicked carbon tax.” Echo. Echo.
So, what is actually going on?
Let’s address the substance first. Where is Labor up to with its policy development?
Labor has developed a public formulation to answer the regular questions it gets about its climate policy: we will take an emissions trading scheme (sometimes it’s described as a market mechanism) to the 2016 election and a “bold plan” to increase ambition around the level of renewable energy.
That gives you the bullet points: there’ll be an emissions trading scheme with a floating price (unlike the scheme when in government, which began with a fixed price and was characterised by Tony Abbott as a tax), and a bigger RET.
People have been looking inconclusively at a range of policy options: the emissions trading scheme (tricky politically, depending on how broad the coverage is); a bunch of new American-style regulations to constrain carbon emissions (also tricky politically, depending on who bears the cost of those regulations); plus a renewables policy (flashy, easy – everybody loves solar panels).
As my colleague Lenore Taylor reported in late May, some are also pondering whether the “safeguards mechanism” in the government’s Direct Action policy could be dramatically strengthened, forcing polluting companies to reduce emissions or buy pollution permits on the domestic or international markets.
This would be another form of emissions trading, but one that would avoid the political inconvenience of having to legislate from scratch.
Privately, there are people inside Labor who would abandon the carbon policy fight altogether and follow the path of least resistance, and there are some who would go to the wall on it. Again, this is not stunning news – we’ve seen this cycle play out in Labor circles, in highly damaging fashion, since 2010.
The ALP is yet to coalesce around its final policy – a posture that will be a bit difficult for the leadership to maintain at next weekend’s Labor national conference.
The party will debate two specific motions on climate policy, including one that will attempt to lock the parliamentary party behind post-2020 emissions reduction targets consistent with advice from the Climate Change Authority.
The Climate Change Authority says Australia should reduce emissions by 30% by 2025 on 2000 levels, and aim to reduce carbon pollution by 40% to 60% by 2030 – which is a significantly more ambitious position than the one being contemplated for Paris by the Abbott government.
Shorten and the leadership will either have to accept that motion, a development that would ensure Australia’s emissions reduction target post-2020 isn’t bipartisan – or work to kill it off.
So that’s where Labor sits, broadly, in a policy sense. It’s hanging on to the bullet points, the broad framework – beyond that it reclines in a collective posture of studious inconclusion.
But never mind the inconvenience of the inconclusion. Politics is politics.
Shorten this week has faced an opinion poll in which his approval rating fell off a cliff in the wake of his appearance at the trade unions royal commission last week. Shorten’s approval also fell with Labor voters.
My analysis last week was the test for Shorten was never actually the two tough days he endured in the witness box at the royal commission – it was navigating the aftermath. I’ve seen nothing this week that makes me change that analysis.
The royal commission has opened and sanctioned a hunting season on Bill Shorten, notwithstanding his structural security as federal Labor leader, courtesy of that Rudd caucus rule that makes it extremely difficult for colleagues to blast him out of his job.
The hunting season might be just a blip and fizzle out, or it might intensify.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, told reporters on Wednesday morning the leak on climate policy was either “an attempt to kill the tax, or kill Bill.”
Hunt is, of course, completely self-interested, and delighted for any excuse to draw attention away from the fact his government has attempted to strangle the renewables industry and seems on course to unveil the weakest post-2020 emissions reduction target in the developed world.
Self-interested, yes.
But he’s not wrong.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/15/labors-carbon-policy-leaked-whos-making-trouble-for-bill-shorten?CMP=soc_567
=====
Labor's carbon working paper leaked: who's making trouble for Bill Shorten?
Katharine Murphy Deputy political editor
@murpharoo
Wednesday 15 July 2015 11.38 AEST Last modified on Wednesday 15 July 2015 11.58 AEST
The question of the political morning is not why is Labor persisting with carbon pricing, but who, exactly, is making trouble for Bill Shorten?
The News Corporation tabloids on Wednesday morning published the thunderous revelation that Labor is privately working up options consistent with what it has been saying publicly: the ALP will retain a commitment to carbon pricing in the lead-up to the next federal election.
The reflection on the leak I’ve just given you is the reflection of an ordinary person who follows the debate closely, and who doesn’t come to carbon pricing from a point of view that it’s the public policy equivalent of cancer.
But whoever shared Labor’s working paper with the Telegraph knows full well they are not helping.
Post-2020 emissions target may not win bipartisan support, Bill Shorten says
You don’t leak to the News Corp tabloids if you want positive coverage for Labor’s as yet unfinalised climate policy. You leak in order to provide fresh meaty fodder for their completely incoherent but powerful culture war against That Wicked Carbon Tax. Over at News, the Wicked Carbon Tax (which wasn’t actually a tax, but why sweat the small stuff?) is always just waiting to jump out of a cupboard somewhere like a masked villain in a pantomime, shrieking “boo”.
Carbon tax. Carbon tax. Echo. Echo. Cue Tony Abbott: “Labor’s wicked carbon tax.” Echo. Echo.
So, what is actually going on?
Let’s address the substance first. Where is Labor up to with its policy development?
Labor has developed a public formulation to answer the regular questions it gets about its climate policy: we will take an emissions trading scheme (sometimes it’s described as a market mechanism) to the 2016 election and a “bold plan” to increase ambition around the level of renewable energy.
That gives you the bullet points: there’ll be an emissions trading scheme with a floating price (unlike the scheme when in government, which began with a fixed price and was characterised by Tony Abbott as a tax), and a bigger RET.
People have been looking inconclusively at a range of policy options: the emissions trading scheme (tricky politically, depending on how broad the coverage is); a bunch of new American-style regulations to constrain carbon emissions (also tricky politically, depending on who bears the cost of those regulations); plus a renewables policy (flashy, easy – everybody loves solar panels).
As my colleague Lenore Taylor reported in late May, some are also pondering whether the “safeguards mechanism” in the government’s Direct Action policy could be dramatically strengthened, forcing polluting companies to reduce emissions or buy pollution permits on the domestic or international markets.
This would be another form of emissions trading, but one that would avoid the political inconvenience of having to legislate from scratch.
Privately, there are people inside Labor who would abandon the carbon policy fight altogether and follow the path of least resistance, and there are some who would go to the wall on it. Again, this is not stunning news – we’ve seen this cycle play out in Labor circles, in highly damaging fashion, since 2010.
The ALP is yet to coalesce around its final policy – a posture that will be a bit difficult for the leadership to maintain at next weekend’s Labor national conference.
The party will debate two specific motions on climate policy, including one that will attempt to lock the parliamentary party behind post-2020 emissions reduction targets consistent with advice from the Climate Change Authority.
The Climate Change Authority says Australia should reduce emissions by 30% by 2025 on 2000 levels, and aim to reduce carbon pollution by 40% to 60% by 2030 – which is a significantly more ambitious position than the one being contemplated for Paris by the Abbott government.
Shorten and the leadership will either have to accept that motion, a development that would ensure Australia’s emissions reduction target post-2020 isn’t bipartisan – or work to kill it off.
So that’s where Labor sits, broadly, in a policy sense. It’s hanging on to the bullet points, the broad framework – beyond that it reclines in a collective posture of studious inconclusion.
But never mind the inconvenience of the inconclusion. Politics is politics.
Shorten this week has faced an opinion poll in which his approval rating fell off a cliff in the wake of his appearance at the trade unions royal commission last week. Shorten’s approval also fell with Labor voters.
My analysis last week was the test for Shorten was never actually the two tough days he endured in the witness box at the royal commission – it was navigating the aftermath. I’ve seen nothing this week that makes me change that analysis.
The royal commission has opened and sanctioned a hunting season on Bill Shorten, notwithstanding his structural security as federal Labor leader, courtesy of that Rudd caucus rule that makes it extremely difficult for colleagues to blast him out of his job.
The hunting season might be just a blip and fizzle out, or it might intensify.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, told reporters on Wednesday morning the leak on climate policy was either “an attempt to kill the tax, or kill Bill.”
Hunt is, of course, completely self-interested, and delighted for any excuse to draw attention away from the fact his government has attempted to strangle the renewables industry and seems on course to unveil the weakest post-2020 emissions reduction target in the developed world.
Self-interested, yes.
But he’s not wrong.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/15/labors-carbon-policy-leaked-whos-making-trouble-for-bill-shorten?CMP=soc_567
I'm begginig to wonder if the PM and senior Libs just never left student politics behind? The PM whole modus operandi is wedge politics. All his policies are framed with one eye on his hard core supporters and the other on Labor. (You may notice neither eye is looking down the road.) He only looks to push Labor further and further to the margins. It is disappointing that one could aspire to the highest public office then let go completely of the tiller and spend the whole time in the stern looking backwards.
KnightersRevenge said:
While I can certainly see where you are coming from KR, I think it is mistaken to think that G.W.Abbott's m/o is that he is stuck in University days. IMO he has made the deliberate choice to follow Howard and to do exactly what you said, and 'play' wedge politics.
As he has shown, he is a terrible leader, has no ability to 'look forward' for Australia and his personal, and religious, ideologies are kept at the fore of any policies he puts forward eg Trying to stop funding to solar, proposing to stop further funding for wind based renewable energy, removing public school's ability to have federally funded school counsellors *unless* they are from that Christian faith group, adding 50% to the cost when getting a divorce, and so the list goes on. So, how does this asshat stay in power?
Wedge Politics. As Howard proved all those not far enough years ago, you can stay in power if you can have a combination of:
- Getting the electorate to dislike the 'other side' more than they dislike you
- Get the opposition party to have internal issues by putting forward policies ONLY for the purpose of causing this situation. Regardless of how carp the policy is for the country, you have *won* because the other side looks like a rabble which, in turn, makes you look kinda good...
- Create enough fear in the community (I have had some friends come back from Canada, or is that Canadia?, a couple of days ago and asked about how much media coverage the Daesh situation was getting over there? I was told it was minimal and that the economy and environment were much more prominent in print media) by any means you can. You then have the other said try to show some rationality about the situation, where you beat it up even more and add that the other side doesn't care about our country's security. On and on it goes... Of course it helps to have a massive media player onside to accomplish this. The Libs do.
So while I think the politics is probably even beneath that of what would have begun in University, I do feel it is a course that has been considered, planned out and acted upon at every available opportunity.
Yes, that just makes it worse!
Policy for politics sake, not for ours.
I legit pi.ssed myself laughing when I heard the LNP claim labor hasn't learnt from its lesson re the carbon tax. the LNP hasn't learnt its lesson of attacking workers rights. howard brings in workchoices and loses his seat. then abbott brings in his politically biased witchunt in the union royal commission.
on top of that, we have Bronwyn bishop. enough said. didnt peter slipper get sacked by the LNP for claiming a few hundred dollars in taxi trips? just sayin...
on top of that, we have Bronwyn bishop. enough said. didnt peter slipper get sacked by the LNP for claiming a few hundred dollars in taxi trips? just sayin...
hows the Bish? With transfers they reckon she saved 40 minutes max, thats both ways. about $165 a minute.
mld said:
Get caught out and pay it back. I'm sure there's a lot of other crooks out there who'd like to be able to do the same thing without any consequences..
Age of entitlement indeed.
Brodders17 said:
so 48 hours later, or actually 3 years later, and noone has any good to say about Abbott as PM.
complaining about lack of balance on this thread is like complaining about lack of balance in the climate change debate. if all the evidence points one way it is reasonable to expect all the commentary will point that way too.
Why bother?
Any positive comments will be shot down in flames.
I think it's interesting that this thread is by and large anti-Abbott, and yet the wider community prefers him to Shorten.
And by a comfortable margin if the polls can be believed.
Brodders17 said:
Yeah exactly. Why are there no far-right ABC journos or Uni academics? Not becuase these organisations are conspiratorial 'lefty lynch mobs', its Because their ideas don't stand up to rational, evidence-based, logical scrutiny.
Research has shown conservatives are less intelligent. Maybe this shows Tiges barrackers are generally smarter?
Not at all. You've failed to give any positives about Abbott. All you've done is compare him to Shorten. Dumb and Dumber the two of them.
Assuming anyone anti-Abbott is pro-Shorten is very wrong. To take take further, assuming anyone anti-Abbott is also anti-Libs is also wrong.
Assuming anyone anti-Abbott is pro-Shorten is very wrong. To take take further, assuming anyone anti-Abbott is also anti-Libs is also wrong.
poppa x said:
to be fair to you it would be pretty hard to come up with any positives. even government ministers struggle.
usually the best they can come up with is scrapping the carbon price to lower the cost of living.
only problem with that argument is the cost of living is rising, at least for those not so well off.
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mount-druitt-v-potts-point-analysis-reveals-true-impact-of-abbott-governments-two-budgets-20150716-gidoob.html
poppa x said:
What is the wider community stat based on poppa?
People might not agree with any positives mentioned (hard to know when we haven't had any mentioned) but debating them doesn't necessarily equate to shooting down in flames. I'd certainly appreciate reading some positives in regards to Tony Abbott. Seems a bit of a cop out to use others' reactions as a reason not to bother with any.
Can you believe Bronnie?! Arrogant to the extreme. This Government has complete contempt for the public.