MERGED: Petrol exempt from carbon tax. Aviation included? [Archive]

Flying Binghi

4th Jul 2011, 09:26

...From what I saw today there will be a tax on buses, trucks and aircraft!

Apparently it depends a lot on just what fuel, petrol, diesel, jet-A yer put in the aircraft...

Steve Price: We were a little confused about the use of the world petrol. Did the PM mean “fuel”?

Dreyfus: The PM meant petrol, very clearly....

Price: So it’s petrol not fuel.

Dreyfus: It’s petrol that we’re talking about…

Price: So her promise doesn’t apply to diesel or LPG?

Dreyfus: No, we’ve made it clear at the moment that we’re talking about petrol…

Price: We contacted the PM’s office this morning because we were confused about the word petrol as opposed to fuel, and according to the Prime Minister’s office she meant to say fuel, not petrol.

Dreyfus: Well, that’s good. If that’s clear.

Price: Well, you don’t know. You’re the minister here. Is it petrol or is it fuel?

Dreyfus: Well, we were about to announce, ah, we hope within a short time the full details of this package… What was made clear by the Prime Minister yesterday was petrol. And if we’ve gone to fuel, that’s clear, too… And if you’ve had confirmation this morning from the Prime Minister’s office that it’s fuel , then it’s fuel.

.....http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/brown/huh.gif ........... http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/brown/grin.gif

A Bolt reader comments...

"...How will staff at a service station decide whether a vehicle filling is Carbon Dioxide Fuel Tax exempt or not.
As far as diesel is concerned I read recently that 25% of all imported cars are now diesel because they are more efficient..."

On the other hand, Gillard could still tax the drivers | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/on_the_other_hand_gillard_could_still_tax_the_drivers/)

.

Howard Hughes

4th Jul 2011, 10:24

Would love to see pilots refusing to fly him, if he wants a carbon tax so badly make him ride his bike back to Tassie...;)

Ultralights

4th Jul 2011, 10:52

or simply triple the charges to fly them anywhere, sorry mr Brown, carbon tax, what can you do eh!

Dark Knight

4th Jul 2011, 12:10

From /the /Greens Policy:
`The Australian Greens want:
`environmental costs incorporated into the cost of air travel.’

Simply put the Greens wish to TAX the aviation industry out of existence.

PM Julia Gillard announces another populist policy attempting to regain some votes only have it again torpedoed by her `partners’ Bob Brown who categorically states they have an undertaking for another committee/investigation/conversation to review this with the aim of introducing Fuel TAX in 2015.

Is this woman and this government really serious?

Does she really think after all the incompetence; deceit and untruthfulness the Australian people are that dumb?

CoodaShooda

4th Jul 2011, 12:16

or simply triple the charges to fly them anywhere, sorry mr Brown, carbon tax, what can you do eh!

Sadly, the tax payer is picking up the bill for his travel. :ugh::yuk:

parabellum

4th Jul 2011, 12:27

The bottom line, (well, one of the many), is that Labour, ALP, have no alternative to TAXATION, they cannot manage money, as they have proved over the last three years, so their only option is to raise taxes from the poor buggahs that are lucky enough to be in employment and earn enough to pay tax but very unlikely to be ALP voters.

FinallyTheTruth

4th Jul 2011, 12:48

Both parties have the same emissions reduction targets. 5% off 1990 levels by 2020. Very important point. BOTH parties have the same targets. The argument is about how you get there.

So Labor has a Carbon Tax to become an emissions trading scheme in a few years, almost universally regarded as the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. Tony Abbott on 7.30 Report tonight couldn't name one economist who says his plan is the best. Less than 1000 companies pay while the money goes to households, green technology and helping trade exposed industries.

The Libs have "Direct Action", which will cost $720 per person per year in tax. They'll either have to raise taxes, or cut services. There is no other way. (Last week they - ie Kevin Andrews - said in parliament that they'd wave through the Government's budget measures worth $2.5 billion when they'd need to find $10bn to fund their version of the tax. I watch Parliament too.)

Labor has compensation which for almost every GA pilot given their income will likely cover all costs. Libs have no compensation.

The effect of the GST on the CPI was much greater than the likely effect of the Carbon Tax. The effect of the increase in the $A has had a much greater effect than the likely effect of the Carbon Tax.

Every time something like this comes along they sky is apparently going to fall in. It arrives and everyone says "what was that all about". This will be the same.

Worrals in the wilds

4th Jul 2011, 13:53

if he wants a carbon tax so badly make him ride his bike back to Tassie...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gifSure, like Ruddy who was so vocal about aircraft noise over his electorate, which didn't stop him using the government jet like a frigging taxi. Bloody thing spent more time coming in and out of Brisbane Airport than the Andrew's Airport Parking van.

One Rule For Some is the motto of all pollies. :ugh:
Labor has compensation which for almost every GA pilot given their income will likely cover all costs.
Meaning that GA pilots have a particular income? :confused: GA pilots I meet come from every income bracket, from 'smell of an oily rag' to 'do you like my new Cirrus I just paid cash for, one day I'm going to learn how to fly it?':}

So what's the go with personal use diesel? Should I be looking for a petrol trade in? Mate is a car dealer who sells several well known Euro brands. He reckons that sales of V6 petrols died in the arse in the last couple of years with everyone wanting an efficient, green friendly diesel, which of course the Euros do well. Maybe he'll finally shift the petrol sixes off the lot, ill wind and all...

It would be awesome if the government worked out the basic details of these schemes before doing the press launch (or before the racketeers start circling, as with the roof insulation fiasco), but I guess that's too much to hope for.

Jabawocky

4th Jul 2011, 21:47

Some people still don't get it!

The Howard government went to an election with the GST as policy and was re-elected.

The GST at 10% replaced Sales Tax which varied from 7.5% up to 30%.

GST is a far more efficient taxation system than Sales Tax, the least of which is capturing a lot (but not all) of the black economy.

Gillard went to an election in 2010 sincerely promising not to introduce a carbon tax, but being held hostage by the Greens, reneged at the earliest opportunity.

So now ask yourself, do you think Gillard will give a toss about the aviation industry?

Ovation has hit the nail on the head.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money!

Now will all you swinging voters get back on the right side of the fence and stay there :=

Ovation

5th Jul 2011, 01:23

A little bit of drift, but this probably sums up the warm feelings the average motorist has about the state of the Nation. :ugh:

I was stuck in a traffic jam on the M1 motorway - nothing was moving - and then a man knocked on my window.

I opened it and asked "what's happening?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped Julia Gillard, Penny Wong and Greg Combet. They're asking for a $100 million dollar ransom, otherwise they're going to douse them all with petrol and set them on fire, so we're going from car to car taking up a collection."

So I asked "How much is everyone giving, on average?"
.
.
.
.
.

"About a litre."

Dark Knight

5th Jul 2011, 02:03

Both parties have the same emissions reduction targets. 5% off 1990 levels by 2020. Very important point. BOTH parties have the same targets. The argument is about how you get there.And, If you do your research it will be discovered the Aviation industry has met and surpassed each and every one these targets.

Therefore, the aviation industry be exempt form any of these TAXes?

Andu

5th Jul 2011, 02:18

Says it all.

YouTube - ‪Brown Town‬&rlm;

Captain Sand Dune

5th Jul 2011, 02:28

Does she really think after all the incompetence; deceit and untruthfulness the Australian people are that dumb?
Clearly she does.
And unfortunately she would be correct. That's how we got to this point.

Ultralights

5th Jul 2011, 06:19

As someone i wouldnt normally say cares about politics said to me the other day, "Does that Juliar think we are all dumb? the talks to us like we are all kindergarten kids"

solowflyer

5th Jul 2011, 06:58

Bring on an election I say

Andy_RR

5th Jul 2011, 07:37

someone e-mailed me this:

Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen - that's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
The next 9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre. The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot. 96% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 14 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch. That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 14 millimetres Australia puts in 0.21 of a millimetre. About the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

Just in case you don't believe the numbers, here's a graph from an IPCC report

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

Fonz121

5th Jul 2011, 08:12

I don't buy the argument that carbon dioxide is so insignificant that nothing needs to be done. If it's so insignificant then how did this happen?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/06/21/China-smog-460x276.jpg

The world's temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees in the last 130 years. Most of this in the last few decades (according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies).

If the Earth was a human body (not as stupid a comparison as it sounds) it would be getting sick. Another couple of degrees and it would die.

I use to think most people shared my (and scientists) views concerning global warming, but everytime a shock jock spews excrement over the airwaves in relation to how global warming is leftie propaganda I feel a little more like I'm in the minority.

Andy_RR

5th Jul 2011, 08:16

I don't buy the argument that carbon dioxide is so insignificant...

The world's global average surface temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees in the last 130 years. Most of this in the last few decades (according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies)...

You missed those three important words. The world's surface temperature ranges from -50°C to +50°C - your comparison with the human body is flawed.

edited to add, the global average temperature cannot have been measured over the last 130 years - only estimated! Now, it was less than a degree you were talking about, wasn't it?

edited again to add, if you boosted the natural land and vegetation absorption of CO2 by only 6%, you'd completely wipe out the effect of all man-made emissions of CO2 and equivalents.

Flying Binghi

5th Jul 2011, 08:34

via Fonz121: I use to think most people shared my (and scientists) views concerning global warming, but everytime a shock jock spews excrement over the airwaves in relation to how global warming is leftie propaganda I feel a little more like I'm in the minority.

Fonz121, yer obviously new to the subject. I would recomend having a read of WUWT - Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)

.

sisemen

5th Jul 2011, 08:46

If it's so insignificant then how did this happen?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/06/21/China-smog-460x276.jpg

Them's particulates Fonz. There will be some gasses in there as well, but the brown stuff is basically solid matter which settles on your car, on your clothes and gets sucked down into your lungs. It's called pollution and I suspect that there's nobody on here that would argue about reducing pollution.

Unfortunately, to secure the grant monies, certain "scientists" with agendas will frighten the pants off Joe Public by dishonestly linking particulate pollution with increases in certain gasses, dishonestly skewing projections and "loading" computer programs to ensure that "modelling" produces the answers which keep the grant monies flowing.

And that's before we start on the politics of it all.

Ultralights

5th Jul 2011, 08:51

Nice dust storm picture Fonz, CO2 is clear.... just as is every other gas in the atmosphere... oh, and if you would like to use the temperature increase as a sickness analogy, how do you explain the FACT we are still here after the earth has been quite a few deg warmer than it is now numerous times in the past???

and dont forget all the doom and gloom scenarios we are told in the media is based on Computer Modelling.... := some of which have already proven to be wildly untrue.
10 yrs ago, Sydney was going to run out of rain supplied water..... hasn't happened, 10 yrs ago, my front yard would be under water by now.... nope, no 30 cm ocean level rise yet.. 10 yrs ago, the aussie ski fields would be lucky to have a mtre of snow over its entire season now, we already have 100 cm snow this season, and its only a few weeks old...

Worrals in the wilds

5th Jul 2011, 09:47

Looks like Mt Isa with bigger buildings :}...

7x7

5th Jul 2011, 10:05

Putting off the (give me strength!) "big" announcement that will reveal "all" until Sunday - after Parliament has risen, so she won't have to face debate in the House - pretty well says that it will be a total can of worms.

Has anyone asked yet how the attendant at the servo will differentiate between Joe Private Citizen buying his exempt petrol and Bruce the Truckie/Tradie/Commercial Driver who's filling his private car to use it commercially?

Ahhh... I know how we'll do it... We'll employ a couple of thousand public servants to administer yet another dog's breakfast.

aussie027

5th Jul 2011, 11:10

Andy,
That 1km description eg, BRILLIANT!!:ok:

That is a good way of explaining to the ignorant and brainwashed masses who've bought into this man made global warming propaganda campaign exactly how minute our contribution to CO2 production is and how we are willing to commit "unilateral economic suicide" in order to think we are actually helping save the world. :ugh::ugh::mad::mad:
God help us all if that is the case.

I read a scientists example years ago saying if the atmosphere was a 100 story building in height, mans total CO2 production would be the thickness of the linoleum on the ground floor.

Here are some links for those who haven't yet been brainwashed, a lot of good reading herein--

http://intelligentessays.********.com/2008/03/anthropogenic-global-warming-propaganda.html

Enter the word -" b l o g s p o t " in the above url where the asterisks are. Dont know why this site changes it and wont let that word even print out in this sentence.:mad:
Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense (http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html)

ICECAP (http://www.icecap.us/)

Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax? An editorial by James A. Peden (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)

Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense (http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html)

FinallyTheTruth

5th Jul 2011, 12:33

Putting off the (give me strength!) "big" announcement that will reveal "all" until Sunday - after Parliament has risen, so she won't have to face debate in the House - pretty well says that it will be a total can of worms.

Er, it isn't being legislated on Sunday. Just details announced. There will be weeks of parliamentary debate. What's the rush? If it gets through the Parliament it doesn't start until next year.

Has anyone asked yet how the attendant at the servo will differentiate between Joe Private Citizen buying his exempt petrol and Bruce the Truckie/Tradie/Commercial Driver who's filling his private car to use it commercially?

Instead of assuming how it'll work, why don't you demonstrate a bit of an open mind and see what is said then. If you don't like it at that point, sure, complain. But until then, how can you know? Or is it just that the detail doesn't matter, you just don't support it?

FinallyTheTruth

5th Jul 2011, 12:35

Unfortunately, to secure the grant monies, certain "scientists" with agendas will frighten the pants off Joe Public by dishonestly linking particulate pollution with increases in certain gasses, dishonestly skewing projections and "loading" computer programs to ensure that "modelling" produces the answers which keep the grant monies flowing.

Ah, the grand conspiracy theory. Scientists are saying something that you don't like, so they must have an ulterior motive.

Given every, and I mean every, credible climate scientist says it is happening, why wouldn't you believe them? This is flat earth stuff.

18-Wheeler

5th Jul 2011, 12:58

Andy,
That 1km description eg, BRILLIANT!!

It's unfortunately not really explaining anything other than the amounts of the various gasses that make up the atmosphere.
It makes no attempt to demonstrate the effect of each of the gasses on the atmosphere, nor the significance of them.
Useless ....

sisemen

5th Jul 2011, 14:31

Given every, and I mean every, credible climate scientist says it is happening

Really??

Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus - by Alan Caruba - Environment & Climate News (http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17568/Climatologists_Reject_Media_Claims_of_Global_Warming_Consens us.html)

On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.

Scientists Disagree
While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.
Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."
Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.

OK. I suppose that you will now come back with an equal number of links and cut and pastes of how the particular scientist or column author is a rabid loony. Frankly I'm not interested in debating that kind of argument. You made a statement. That statement does not stand up to examination. My previous statements do. End of.

Howard Hughes

5th Jul 2011, 22:35

Given every, and I mean every, credible climate scientist says it is happening, why wouldn't you believe them?
So anyone who has an alternative view is not credible?

I and many others are still waiting to be convinced one way or the other with a reasoned debate and some actual evidence. So far I have only heard one scientist who can explain (with science) the non existence of man made climate change and none who can actually provide testable evidence to support it.

All too often the climate change scientists (sic) are quick to point out that anyone with a contrary view is in the employ of 'big business', when they themselves are in the employ of organisations with a vested interest in the acceptance of climate change.

Worrals in the wilds

5th Jul 2011, 22:54

At least one major university's first year scientific ethics course is using Climate Change theory as an example of how not to publically debate a scientific theory. A lot of people have been left confused, sceptical and angry. Compared to the way the Sagan Group handled the Nuclear Winter theory (and they were advocating nuclear disarmament at the height of the Cold War :eek:), the hysteria, brow beating and carry-on has been appalling.

When scientists pretend to be pollies and pollies pretend to be scientists, the whole thing's bound to get messy. Religious-style fervour should have no place in scientific debate. There's been far too much of it, and IMO that sort of behaviour has turned a lot of people against the whole theory.

MTOW

5th Jul 2011, 23:16

FinallyTheTruth, you say: There will be weeks of parliamentary debate. What's the rush? Parliament will not sit for five weeks after the "details" are announced on Sunday.

However, I agree with your following comment - "What's the rush?"

So why not wait until after the next election - AS PROMISED?

Then, if elected with a carbon (dioxide) tax as your Party's major policy platform (as it has become for Labor, despite their leader promising, six days before the last election, that "there will be no carbon tax under a government oi lead".

I supposed I should close in saying "welcome back, RedT."

Ovation

6th Jul 2011, 01:38

MTOW - You beat me to it!

I supposed I should close in saying "welcome back, RedT."

sisemen

6th Jul 2011, 01:49

Yes, I thought that all sounded very familiar but, given past history, didn't want to inflame things by pointing it out. The mods have a very short fuse nowadays :oh:

Worrals in the wilds

6th Jul 2011, 02:42

I guess the username Joolz_Roolz was already taken :}.

CoodaShooda

6th Jul 2011, 04:17

Can we start a pool on how long it takes 'them' to encourage the mods to lock this thread? :E

Andu

6th Jul 2011, 04:23

Yes Cooda, I suspect they'll do a repeat of their past performance and drop aq few posts guaranteed to upset the moderators and Bob's yer uncle - thread binned. (A bit like the recent banning of Christopher Monkton in the noncyber world.)

This bloke's a Brit and speaks about the UK, but the people he's referring to are the soul mates of those who still support Gillard despite everything she's (not) done since 2007. YouTube - ‪An illiberal consensus‬&rlm;

Flying Binghi

6th Jul 2011, 10:59

Dont worry, if the Green led Labor lot stop yer flying you can always install windmills. Everybody will have a job, we will be a nation of windmill installers..http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/images/smilies/eusa_eh.gif

An absolute bubblehead, babbling brightly about destroying a city’s industry:
GREENS senator Sarah Hanson-Young believes the South Australian steel town of Whyalla can transform itself into a hub of wind energy if Julia Gillard’s carbon tax forced manufacturer OneSteel to close its operations.

...OneSteel is directly responsible for the jobs of up to 4000 people

Tell that to the workers, Senator | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tell_that_to_the_workers_senator/)

.

Andu

6th Jul 2011, 11:16

...and what do you build windmill towers (and much of the other components of the windmill) out of?

- steel. ... which the Greens can't have us producing in Whyalla because it will (gasp!) destroy the pristine environment they would like Whyalla to have.

Nice one, SHY. Like all Greens policies, all warm and huggie in the abstract - and totally impractical in the cold light of day.

How does Brown get to and from Tasmania (apart from for free [for him] - at taxpayers' expense)? By canoe? No, that would involve taking the bark off a tree. Can't have that.

Worrals in the wilds

6th Jul 2011, 11:56

Bit like Bob's Green rail network. What's train juice made out of? Coal.

Can we start a pool on how long it takes 'them' to encourage the mods to lock this thread? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Aussie thread, Aussie ettiquette, none of this JB chaps' rules/touchy feely stuff. Two men enter...one man leaves...two men enter... :E
http://www.seektress.com/dome.jpg

Flying Binghi

6th Jul 2011, 22:41

Former Labor Minister Gary Johns...

Picture Brown’s address to (his recently mooted) United Nations of all People. “Tellurians of the world unite!” He gets no further because a Chinese guard drags him off stage as a dangerous environmentalist and gay activist.

Bob, in the parliament of the world, China has the numbers.

The Greens will consume the good upbringing that family brings, the immense wealth, health and comfort that human ingenuity brings, and the political stability that nation states bring, but they will never defend them.

Full article via Greens do not love humans enough to rule | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_do_not_love_humans_enough_to_rule/)

.

7x7

6th Jul 2011, 23:55

I think the point lost on diehard Greens voters is that people like them can only exist in the very kind of society that they want so deeply to destroy.

sisemen

7th Jul 2011, 00:52

...and that is being aided and abetted by Juliar and her bunch of cretins purely so that they can hang on to the trappings of power.

Oh, I am so looking forward to the next election....oblivion for the Greens and almost total annihilation and humiliation for the ALP. Oak****t and Windsor needn't even bother turning up :E

Howard Hughes

7th Jul 2011, 01:56

It will take two terms to get the Greens into oblivion sisemen, unless a double disolution can be forced. Sadly I think as more people run from the Labor party, they will vote Green simply because they can't bring themselves to vote for the Conservatives.

Andu

7th Jul 2011, 02:18

I fear you're right on both counts, Howard.

However, it will be interesting to see how committed many remain if it's as cold next winter as this one's proving to be and when they can't afford to turn the heating on.

That's if the 'new Green' grid can even supply the unaffordable power.

Worrals in the wilds

7th Jul 2011, 06:07

Sadly I think as more people run from the Labor party, they will vote Green simply because they can't bring themselves to vote for the Conservatives. Do you think so? Up here they're about as popular as herpes at the moment, although Queensland's never exactly been pro Greens. I can certainly see a big increase in the donkey vote next election though. It will be interesting to see how independent candidates go too, and whether the current fiasco has put people off voting for non-party aligned candidates.

Howard Hughes

7th Jul 2011, 07:18

Queensland notwithstanding Worrals, you lot are a different mob up there...;)

sisemen

7th Jul 2011, 11:52

Fortunately for common sense and democracy Western Australia is the rottweiler scratching at Gillard's door.

7x7

7th Jul 2011, 12:56

I've just sat through Q&A... (blood pressure's almost back to normal, if not quite yet). The bombshell that was set off in that programme, and that should appear in banner headlines in tomorrow's newspapers as well as setting the talkback radio switchboards into meltdown was Chris Bowen squirming and studiously NOT denying that the Australian taxpayer will be responsible for the education, accommodationand health care (and probably feeding and a living allowance) of the 800 asylum seekers who are sent to Malaysia - for as many decades as they stay there.

You keep thinking that this government can't possibly get something else as wrong as thay have got a succession of things wrong to date, only to be proven wrong.

sisemen

7th Jul 2011, 15:07

Just wait for Sunday 7x7. Then we'll see just how badly they can screw things up.

I've done a quick calculation: with the number of "severe polluting companies" dropped by half and with 80% of the population getting some sort of compensation to ensure that they are not affected by the carbon tax by my reckoning a certain Mr George Smith living at 43 Railway Mansions, Surry Hills is the guy that's going to be paying for all this.

Hardly surprising that the average 'man in the street' (who is a labor voter - note RTB et al) cannot figure out what this new tax is supposed to do and is dead set against it.

Ovation

8th Jul 2011, 01:31

In a desperate move to counter the unpopularity of the Carbon Dioxide Tax, Gillard and Swan at the last minute exempted cars and light commercial vehicles from it.

My questions:

"How can a petrol pump decide what type of vehicle is being refueled"?

"How many of the "other" users will create some sort of "work-around" to avoid the tax"?

:ugh:

The Carbon Dioxide Tax will not make an iota of difference to AGW, but what it will do is:

Create multiple levels of bureaucracy to administer

Create opportunities for rorting of the system

Redistribute wealth

Move affected industries offshore

Make Australia the laughing stock of our trade competitors

"For every person that receives a dollar without earning it, another has to earn it without receiving it"

CoodaShooda

8th Jul 2011, 03:24

Interesting to see Christine Milne announcing the creation of a government agency with a $3.2 billion budget.

Wonder who the responsible Minister is.

Or has Canberra adopted the Tasmanian model of shared (ir)responsibility? :E

Andu

8th Jul 2011, 04:40

Just watched Q&A on tape. As has been mentioned above, I'm surprised that the media haven't latched on (screaming) to Bowen's tacit admission that the Malaysians have insisted that none of the 800 asylum seekers Australia is to send there to swap for the 4000 already there will be allowed to be admitted to a public hospital and none who are children will be allowed to enter a Malaysian school.

Nor will the Malaysians provide accommodation for the 800.

In short, despite our taking 4000 for the 800 our government will send there, these 800 will be on the Australian taxpayers' teat for the whole time they remain in Malaysia - and "protected" by some Australian protection documentation to boot.

Which makes their being put "at the end of the queue" as punishment more a punishment for the long suffering Australian taxpayer than for the asylum seekers.

At least Bowen had the good grace to look extremely uncomfortable as he sprouted the ALP "company line" about "destroying the people smugglers' business model".

This mob really couldn't organise a punch up on pay night.

Ovation

9th Jul 2011, 06:37

The person on the right is the one who's about to increase the cost of your Avgas.

A picture tells a thousand words.:ugh:

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/07/08/2481977/ipad-art-wide-parliament-420x0.jpg

Age 08/07/2011

Frank Arouet

9th Jul 2011, 06:57

For all you old farts out there, pensioners will be "overcompensated" to the tune of $210.00 pa. which equates to just enough petrol at todays pre carbon price to fill the Victa lawn mower once a week. (unless you own a "flymow", and then you can't afford the electricity).

Bloody hell! Woolworths give a bigger discount than $2.00 per week on petrol.

Ovation

10th Jul 2011, 02:42

What the TAX on PLANT FOOD will do for you! :ugh:

Increase in domestic aviation fuel excise equivalent to carbon price, no effect on international aviation.
There will be a good outcome of this TAX: Gillard and Swan have committed political suicide adding more justification (if it was ever needed) to remove the most incompetent Labor government Australia has ever seen.

Pinky the pilot

10th Jul 2011, 03:15

I do wonder why it has (so far) only been a few talk back radio hosts who have actually dared to utter the words that this so called carbon tax is nothing more than ''a Socialist wealth re-distribution scheme.''

There will be a good outcome of this TAX: Gillard and Swan have committed political suicide adding more justification (if it was ever needed) to remove the most incompetent Labor government Australia has ever seen.

Ovation; No argument there. Juliar even makes the Whitlam administration look better than they actually were.

Oh for a double dissolution.

sisemen

10th Jul 2011, 04:46

If, as I suspect, this government continues to bomb in the polls after the Carbon Tax announcement and if the ALP sincerely means that it has the country's best interests at heart then they should call a double dissolution so that the rats in the Upper House can be cleared out at the same time as the vermin in the Lower House.

Ultralights

10th Jul 2011, 04:54

i see there is no mention of the GST windfall as a result of this, every $1 you pay in carbon tax will also add $0.10 in GST revenue... :mad:

FoxtrotAlpha18

10th Jul 2011, 05:42

Near $1 billion fuel excise hike for aviation under carbon tax plan | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/07/near-1-billion-fuel-excise-hike-for-aviation-under-carbon-tax-plan/)

Andu

10th Jul 2011, 07:30

Gents (and gentesses), I've come to what some might think a rather contrarian conclusion in regards to the actions of Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor in backing the Gillard "government" (to use that last word lather loosely).

Rather than see them as total oxygen thieves who've clearly acted against the wishes of the vast majority of their voters in their electorates, I find myself wondering if history won't see them as Conservative heroes who committed personal political suicide in an high-minded endeavour to ensure that even the thickest and most rusted-on Labor supporters among the collective Australian electorate would have the blinkers forcibly removed from their eyes by making them endure a whole term of idiotic Labor government, ensuring that Labor will never set their sorry arses on the government benches again for a generation.

Of course, on the other hand, they both might just be total oxygen thieves... :)

rmcdonal

10th Jul 2011, 07:51

I wouldn't want to be either of those two when QLink put their airfares up due 'carbon tax'. Not a lot of competition on any of those routes (accept maybe Virgin on YPMQ, but they will be hit even harder as they burn more).

Worrals in the wilds

10th Jul 2011, 08:28

Anyone else neither a family or a "battler"? After listening to a fortnight of federal government PR spin I'm starting to feel like one of these...Stealth Voter, invisible to ALP radar. :suspect:
http://www.hawaiiforvisitors.com/images/oahu/attractions/hickam-stealth-2008-02-12-500x323.jpg

7x7

10th Jul 2011, 09:09

I just endured the 5 minutes of Jiliar spruiking her line. The fake "earnest, sympathetic" tone of voice was a bit difficult to take, (and so obviously carefully rehearsed), but the "it won't only not cost you anything, but you'll get more in your pocket than we take from you" seems to have hit the target with many journos, and, I suspect, with many of the so-called battlers.

I nearly choked when I saw the unwashed "students" celebrating the imposition of the tax, particularly the boban who siad it was like having his birthday, his 21st birthday and Christmas all in one. God help us all. People like that get to vote.

The devil, I feel, will be in the details, and just how quickly those details become apparent to the majority of voters will decide if she succeeds in selling - and inflicting - this crock to and on us all.

sisemen

10th Jul 2011, 09:53

Anyone else neither a family or a "battler"?

I'm a family (got a wife)

I'm a battler - self-funded retiree, under the tax line (thanks to the UK/Aus$ situation), not an Australian pensioner etc etc.

But, as far as I can see, there's nothing in the pot of gold for me and I will be standing alongside Mr George Smith of 43 Railway Mansions as the blokes who are going to have to pay for Juliar's self-erected and delusional monument to greatness.

Thanks for nuthin' Witch.

Howard Hughes

10th Jul 2011, 23:25

It turns out I am in the 'elite' 7.95% of Australians who will have to pay, who would have thought? :rolleyes:

Fubaar

10th Jul 2011, 23:46

Something's just occurred to me. Someone's going to have to calculate how much carbon each polluter is emitting and then collecting the money. So am I alone in thinking that this will mean another couple of thousand well paid public servants shuffling paper? And am I also alone in thinking that each polluter will be employing an office full of lawyers who will be contesting that they are not in fact emitting as much carbon as the public serfs say they are?

I see yet another huge totally non-productive "Ca'ching!" for the lawyers and the public serfs.

And on another topic: how many of the "thousands" of Green jobs that Bob Brown assures us "will" be created after he destroys the coal, steel (and who knows what other) industries will actually produce anything?

peuce

10th Jul 2011, 23:56

I am just a dumb arsed pilot, so I've probably missed something ... but it just doesn't add up to me:

OBJECTIVE: Save the Planet

METHOD:

Charge dirty industry $20
Dirty Industry will pass $20 charge onto customer
Government will pay customer $21
Final deficet is something like -$2bn
Taxpayers have to come up with extra $2bn, through taxes

OUTCOME: Planet still waiting to be saved... and, as someone mentioned ... wealth re-distributed

DirectAnywhere

11th Jul 2011, 00:04

Quick back of the envelope calculation...

On every 100 tones of jet fuel you are now looking at an excise increase of about $7700 to over $13,000!!!!! That's a lot of coin in anyone's language.

I wouldn't want to guess how much this is about to hit the domestic aviation sector. There is simply no practical alternative to air transport in this nation.

Price sensitive areas of the market (read Tiger and Jetstar in particular) are going to be hit hard. Virgin will also be hit hard as it relies so much on the domestic market. QANTAS? Well, who knows wtf QANTAS are going to be doing after 24th August anyway.

I doubt Senators Milne and Brown are planning to row back to Tasmania by the way.

CoodaShooda

11th Jul 2011, 00:55

We're worse than stealth voter's Worrals.

We're in the 10% 'target' demographic :{

Family income tax is already up $10/week thanks to the flood levy.

And no-one in Canberra seems to make allowances for the higher cost of raising a family in remote Australia when identifying "rich" families.

RICH? I wish! :mad:

I just want to know where they are finding the savings to fund the $2.9 billion up front shortfall.

Ultralights

11th Jul 2011, 00:59

the extra 2.9Bilion will come from the increase in GST revenue after its added to the prices with carbon tax already added. $1 in carbon tax revenue will also attract $0.10 in GST increase as well. and dont forget, the Aviation fuel excise increase will increase very 6 months, not year

Howard Hughes

11th Jul 2011, 01:36

Someone's going to have to calculate how much carbon each polluter is emitting and then collecting the money. So am I alone in thinking that this will mean another couple of thousand well paid public servants shuffling paper?
They have already started, see here! (https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/)

And here's my results..
...total annual Government assistance would be: $6 per year

Of this...

...assistance provided through Australian Government payments would be: $0 per year

...and assistance through tax changes would be: $6 per year
Thank you Julia and co...:yuk:

22k

11th Jul 2011, 01:40

Just listening to the radio here,

Whilst I myself havent yet delved into the specifics yet, Newsradio was just reporting that there is going to be NO assistance for the Aviation industry when the tax is introduced.

QF saying that they will pass any incurred costs onto pax. Does anyone know roughly wha the impact is likely to be? How will we be able to compete with other countries that dont have a carbon tax and therefore have cheaper fares etc?

Am I the only one thinking that we are headed for a pretty uncertain time here? Im not just talking about the Big guys here either, what about al the little freight runners, mail runners, charter co's etc that will now have massive cost increases to pass on? This is going to hurt some sectors very badly i would have thought??

MTOW

11th Jul 2011, 01:41

There's a thread already running (more or less) on this topic on the GA page.

ConfigFull

11th Jul 2011, 01:51

Was thinking about starting a new thread titled "Will JQ Pass on Carbon Tax a la Fuel Surcharge?"

Could JQ make it any more obvious how much QF is subsidising them by openly refusing to pass on the Carbon Tax Surcharge?

ga_trojan

11th Jul 2011, 02:22

Meanwhile the most inefficient form of transport the motor car is not taxed. Neither are trucks.

The carbon tax will encourage people to drive more cars and push them away from mass transport because trains and planes will be paying the tax. Aviation will be paying the full economic cost of the carbon tax.

Carbon tax also won't factor in the environmental damage done by building roads, a comparative advantage that aviation has over cars/trains/buses/trucks.

If the Greens/Labor government were anywhere near serious about this they would be encouraging people to get out of motor cars and into:

Bicycles
Public Transport (bus/train)
Planes
Walking
Sailing

Instead they are going to increase the cost of public transport and aviation (which is very efficient form of transport) and leaving the motor car exempt. Would have to be one of the most hypocritical policies ever made by any government anywhere.

IF the carbon tax is about saving the world then tax EVERYTHING no exceptions.

Ultralights

11th Jul 2011, 03:02

...the average price impact would be: $485 per year

...total annual Government assistance would be: $3 per year

Whoohooooo! i can afford a can of coke! Thank you. :mad::mad:

ga_trojan

11th Jul 2011, 03:06

Will make no difference now, but don't forget that this thing will go up 2.5% on top inflation every year, till they go to carbon trading. So the $23/Tonne will increase by at least 5% a year every year. I would suggest that CPI is going get much higher than the 2-3% figures we are used to in this country.

CoodaShooda

11th Jul 2011, 03:08

$3.50 a can here U/L :{

Ovation

11th Jul 2011, 03:10

Any man in the street who thinks they'll be better off with a Carbon Dioxide would also have to believe in the tooth fairy. Given the way it has been introduced, a sensible person would begin to think it's nothing to do with plant food, but everything to do with revenue. The banking and finance industry will make a killing when they begin trading CDO's (Carbon Dioxide Obligations), not to be confused with the CDO's that caused the GFC in 2007, which is why they've stayed fairly quiet, and this link explains why: A Bankers Wet Dream (http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/the-claytons-emissions-market-the-market-you-have-when-youre-not-having-a-market.html)

On the lighter side, Australia Post recalled a 55c stamp with the picture of Gillard on it because of complaints it would not adhere to the envelope.

After much investigation, it seems everybody was spitting on the wrong side. :yuk:

Xcel

11th Jul 2011, 03:35

As it's all passed on to consumers the additional tax will attract gst on top as well. Tax on tax on tax - at least the effects will be dispersed across a number of pax... And the knock on effect would be that airlines would find savings in fleet modernization... No more old bangers

osmosis

11th Jul 2011, 04:41

_13B4k3q4AA

V-Jet

11th Jul 2011, 04:52

A couple of solutions available to solve ALL the recent problems in Australia.

1) Canberra has one of the best grassy knolls in the world. Certainly it is right up there - truly world class. Much as the mafia may have utilised one in Dallas, so too could we in Australia. I've been to the one in Dallas and it isn't a patch on what we have in CBR. To my knowledge we haven't ever used our knoll before, aside from the practicalities what is the purpose of having built one if we never use it? As an aside (seems silly to reinvent the wheel when there are experts possibly available) did Lee Harvey leave any relatives and if so might they make themselves available?

2) We could start a breeding program for Milats. I envisage a large mob/herd (collective noun for Milats anyone?) being bred for release around Lake Burley Griffin in late spring. They would of course need careful monitoring, but they are an available resource with known skills that would certainly be of benefit to the nation in this time of crisis. I think a mob of wild Milats would (at the very least) encourage a rethink on some recent policy changes - or hopefully solve the problem permanently. Once the primary problem is solved it would surely not be hard to cross train them to hunt Leprechauns.

Howard Hughes

11th Jul 2011, 05:05

Whoohooooo! i can afford a can of coke!
Not after 2014 when transport costs will increase!

peterc005

11th Jul 2011, 05:40

Something needs to be done about climate change, and I'm impressed that Julia Gillard is brave enough to see this difficult policy thru to a successful conclusion.

Howard Hughes

11th Jul 2011, 06:08

She won't be around that long Peter...:rolleyes:

sisemen

11th Jul 2011, 06:10

C'mon Peter. The matter is far too serious to be cracking jokes like that.

Dark Knight

11th Jul 2011, 06:11

Something needs to be done about climate change, and I'm impressed that Julia Gillard is brave enough to see this difficult policy thru to a successful conclusion.

Why?

Climate change has been happening since evolution and the world temperature, carbon dioxide levels and seal levels have been much higher in the past

What difference will Julia's TAX here in Australia make to the worlds environmental problems?

Pinky the pilot

11th Jul 2011, 06:13

the extra 2.9Bilion will come from the increase in GST revenue after its added to the prices with carbon tax already added.

Err, no actually. Heard Wayne Swan put on the griller on the radio this morning and after much spin and attempts to avoid answering the question he finally admitted that the 2.9 Billion would be borrowed, presumably from the IMF.

Anyone else get the feeling that we are headed to a stiuation similar to that in which Greece currently finds itself?:hmm:

peterc005 You cannot be serious.:confused:

blackhand

11th Jul 2011, 06:21

@Pinky the Pilot

Khemlani affair comes to mind.
Those too young to remember, google it

Pinky the pilot

11th Jul 2011, 06:27

Khemlani affair comes to mind.

Well, that one was caused by a blitheringly incompetent Government and a few shady individuals........er...I see what you mean.:sad:

Ovation

11th Jul 2011, 06:36

Something needs to be done about climate change, and I'm impressed that Julia Gillard is brave enough to see this difficult policy thru to a successful conclusion.

Obviously some people are easily impressed or deceived or both. There's a very fine line between brave and foolhardy, and given the lies and deceit imposed on the electorate to advance a socialist cause, I would put Gillard in the latter category.

You may trust her capabilities, but I (and I'm sure I speak for many others) certainly don't. The wife of Craig Emerson MP might have an opinion whether Gillard's an honorable person or not.

Look here: Gillard's dirty little Secret (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Emerson+Gillard+home+wrecker)

Andu

11th Jul 2011, 07:25

This latest offering by Gillard isn't about saving the environment; it's wealth redistribution, pure and simple. What did Margaret Thatcher say about Socialism? "It works wonderfully until you run out of other people's money."

What's happening to this country under Gillard is well explained in the message below.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be Labour Party minded, and she was very much in favour of higher taxes to support her education and for more government programs - in other words, the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured a selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors must be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she
never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who
only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, it would be fair and you would both be equal."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea; how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative side of the fence."

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Conservative and Labour/Greens, I'm all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Conservative supporter doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Labour/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is gay, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labour/Green is gay, he demands legislated respect.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Labour/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labour/Greens demand that those they don't like should be banned.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Labour/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a Conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Labour/Green will delete it because he's "offended."

DirectAnywhere

11th Jul 2011, 07:41

Asx is down 1.5% today. Markets are not impressed.

Most Australians lost more on their super today than they'll get back in compensation.

Joker89

11th Jul 2011, 09:21

Wonder how much carbon her BBJ is going burn as she wears out her shoe leather. In any case the public will pick up that tab too.

Animalclub

12th Jul 2011, 00:19

Carbon tax is socialism by deceit
Mirko Bagaric
From: The Courier-Mail
July 12, 2011 12:00AM

CORE VALUES: Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan is really an attempt at wealth redistribution. Source: Sunday Herald Sun

THE only incontestable truth relating to the carbon tax is not the warming planet, but that Julia Gillard was always going to inflict a wealth distribution tax on Australia.

The carbon tax is nothing about cooling the planet; it is everything about wealth redistribution.

Prime Minister Gillard has tried hard to distance herself from the radical socialist ideology she promulgated at the start of her career. Her words repeatedly betray these values; her actions wholeheartedly embrace them.

The structure of the carbon tax is a basal lesson in human nature. People rarely abandon their core values and, given the opportunity to action them, will do so, no matter how much deceit is involved.

As a carbon reduction exercise, the carbon tax will fail at the global level. Australia produces about 1.5 per cent of the world's total greenhouse emissions. The best modelling suggests that if we closed down all of our industries, the temperature drop would be so small that it would not be detectable in most thermometers.

The carbon tax will do nothing to reduce climate degradation and the Gillard Government will eventually need to tell voters the embarrassing answer to how much temperatures will fall as a result of the tax.

The best argument in support of the tax is that it will set an example for other high-emitting countries, such as the US, China, Russia and India.

But the trend of human history shows that this aspiration is illusory. Australia has no international power or authority. In this sphere only two currencies count: wealth and military strength. We fare poorly on both. Other countries don't care what we do. They don't want to impress us because it is not in their self-interest.

Moreover, the tax is unlikely to achieve even the modest emission reductions proposed by government modelling. Most people will be financially better off under the tax and have no incentive to change their behaviour.

But that won't faze Gillard one bit. The design of the carbon tax shows that it can be explained by only one rational objective: to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The richest 10 per cent of households will now be forced to donate more of the products of their labour to the other households.

A tax aimed solely at reducing carbon emissions should affect every individual equally. The fact that there are distinct groups of winners and losers under the tax indicates that the aim of the carbon tax is other than to reduce emissions.

Gillard has achieved, under the supposed imperative of temperature cooling, the socialist utopia of wantonly taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

There are sound theoretical arguments for moving more towards a needs, as opposed to merit, based society and economy. There are also strong counter arguments for not introducing incentive-zapping economic reforms.

The real tragedy is the Australian community didn't have the opportunity to engage in this debate.

Charlie Foxtrot India

12th Jul 2011, 01:45

The Fabians are winning... :uhoh:

The Fabian Society – Creeping Communism | NWO Observer (http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-fabian-society-creeping-communism/)

Worrals in the wilds

12th Jul 2011, 03:49

The real tragedy is the Australian community didn't have the opportunity to engage in this debate.

And that's the criticism they have nothing to counter. If the Carbon Tax is so awesome and necessary, why wasn't it awesome and necessary leading up to the last election? There have been no great developments in Climate Change theory since then, so presumably the alleged pressing need for a price on carbon has not changed. Why wasn't it taken to the electorate?

All the government spin we're hearing is twelve months too late. If they really wanted this as a matter of principle they would have made it an election promise in 2010 and sold it with all the requisite spin and pork barrelling then, as Howard did with GST. They may have won doing so, many people are not anti carbon pricing per se but have been turned off by the underhanded introduction and the glaringly obvious fact that this is the result of a deal with the Greens to keep power.

It's got nothing to do with climate or the environment and everything to do with clinging on to a parliamentary majority, the same reason they haven't dumped the traitorous Rudd, no matter how much he shafts them.

These guys would legalize the sale of dophin steaks if they thought it would keep them a seat. :ugh: The trouble they've got is that every bastard knows it.

Pinky the pilot

12th Jul 2011, 05:47

Anyone else see the footage of Greg Combet trying to defend the introduction of this wealth redistribution tax? The body language seemed to say he knows he's trying to sell a crock of excrement.

Wonder just how many Labor MPs actually disagree with Juliar?

These guys would legalize the sale of dophin steaks if they thought it would keep them a seat. The trouble they've got is that every bastard knows it.

Worrals; Aint it the truth. However, I suspect that this time they have really gone too far, for as I see it the majority of general public have either simply stopped listening to Labor or no longer believe anything the Government says.

Andu

12th Jul 2011, 07:12

The shock jocks on talkback radio should stop calling it the carbon (dioxide) tax and re-name it the "wealth re-distribution tax".

7x7

12th Jul 2011, 07:15

Home alone at the moment and I'm embarrassed to say that when that woman appeared on the TV and I heard that braying voice on the 5 o'clock news I found myself screaming abuse at the television.

The medication has kicked in now and I'm feeling much better.

MilFlyer

12th Jul 2011, 07:56

These guys would legalize the sale of dophin steaks if they thought it would keep them a seat. :ugh:That's gold!

Something needs to be done about climate change, and I'm impressed that Julia Gillard is brave enough to see this difficult policy thru to a successful conclusion.What? $120,000,000,000 tax on the economy over 8 years because you think we need to 'prevent' 1/14,000 C° warming? :mad: me ... what a bargain eh? [/sarcasm]

Tell you what, if you're worried that you need the temperature to be 1/14,000 C° cooler, move house to a location about 1 km south. :rolleyes:

I copied that pro-Gillard quote above from someone elses quote.. who said it so that we can all stand, point and laugh at them. :p

sisemen

12th Jul 2011, 11:45

Nah. Wrong target Mil. That poster was merely having a joke.

Wasn't he?????

However, I'm all for ridding Australia of toxic waste. Perhaps we should start with Juliar and her mates and, of course, the Prime Minister Bob Brown.

Joker89

12th Jul 2011, 22:56

News this morning said 60% of people want an election on the tax. Wonder how old man Windsor and rob jokeshot feel about ending their career supporting the most unpopular and incompetent government since Whitlam.

MilFlyer

12th Jul 2011, 23:08

rob jokeshot

Heard on the radio a few months ago someone who went to school with him. Apparently they used to call him 'Rob Should-Be-Shot' :p

Fubaar

12th Jul 2011, 23:24

I think we should all have a group pray in asking the Creator (the one that Juliar doesn't believe in) to give her a major and long lasting case of laryngitis so we don't have to hear that awful bloody voice for a month or two.

...on the other hand, maybe that would be a very bad thing, for I suspect that her popularity would probably soar if the voting public didn’t have to listen to her.

I watched part of Channel 10’s 7 O’clock Project last night, (the Labor Party’s commercial propaganda programme). I have to admit, she handled herself very, very well, even if she was very, very economical with the truth. However, if Dave Hughes was to get any further up The Adored One’s ample arse his head would be visible when she opened her lying mouth. I thought most people in the entertainment industry understood the unwritten rule of (not) declaring one’s political leanings. As one noted US entertainer said: “It just alienates half of your audience.”

The American was offering good advice, Hughsie.

MTOW

12th Jul 2011, 23:46

I have to admit, she handled herself very, very wellI'd have reworded that to read "I thought she was handled very, very gently". It was a Joolya love fest, with all of the regulars fawning, to a sickening degree, all over her. Not just Dave Hughes, but all of the talking heads on that show certainly make no secret of which way they lean politically.

You could be forgiven for thinking they're all angling for jobs with the ABC after their current contracts with Channel 10 run out.

Joker89

12th Jul 2011, 23:46

This government is hell bent on taxing the economy into a recession. What have we seen so far. Flood levy, mining tax, carbon tax and Roxon wants to get rid of the private health insurance rebate so more pressure will be put on the public hospital system. There seems to be not one economic brain cell in the whole government. What makes all this extra tax even worse is the way the money is wasted. NBN, BER, pink bats and now all these extra government agencies to redistribute the carbon tax revenue. Where will it end? At least when the election does come the greens and labor will be voted into oblivion NSW style.

End rant.

MTOW

12th Jul 2011, 23:52

Just heard on the news this morning that Greens and Labor candidates for the Council elections in Woolongong are putting themselves up as Independents. (For those not familiar with Woolongong Council, it's been in Administration because the (Labor) Council was so incredibly corrupt that even the NSW Labor government could not ignore how crooked it was and had to bin it.)

These so-called 'independents' recognise that both the Greens and Labor are so on the nose with the Woolongong electorate that they have to present themselves as not being what they really are.

18-Wheeler

13th Jul 2011, 05:11

CORE VALUES: Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan is really an attempt at wealth redistribution. Source: Sunday Herald Sun

I am curious to see how that works, when in reality everyone that pays tax will either pay more of it or have less money in their pockets at the end of the day.

Frank Arouet

13th Jul 2011, 06:23

The whole concept has been re-named once again;

It's now "dangerous carbon pollution".

Coca Cola will be sorry to hear that.

Also when listing this government's past stuff up's everyone has forgotten about the 20 million doses of fluvax that went tit's up and wasted.

Someone help me.... 20 million x say $30 is what?

MTOW

13th Jul 2011, 07:06

I am curious to see how that worksEasily explained, 18W, perhaps best by the story below.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1,
The sixth would pay $3,
The seventh would pay $7,
The eighth would pay $12,
The ninth would pay $18,
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do!!

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

Being good mates and Australians they still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

Now what about the other six men? They were after all the paying customers. How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each Man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the Principle of the Australian Tax System they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% Saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving), The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving), The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving), The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving), The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). The six are better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man and said "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

So! Boys and Girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the Australian Taxation System. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the tax atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Worrals in the wilds

13th Jul 2011, 08:49

...all of the talking heads on that show certainly make no secret of which way they lean politically. They're entertainers not journalists (I don't really count newsreaders as jounos, though I know it's a debatable point) and most entertainment people are left wing. The trouble is when they try to market the show as a serious journalistic endeavour because none of them have the interviewing skills or do the background research to make it so.

I watch the 7pm project intermittently and it's not bad when it sticks to light and fluffy stories about movies, celebutards, sport and similar. However, when it comes to politics, science or anything serious the presenters are so far out of their depth that the produceers probably have a decompression chamber stashed out the back somewhere.

18-Wheeler

13th Jul 2011, 10:42

Excellent, Me Think OverWeight. :)

sisemen

13th Jul 2011, 11:59

It would appear that Juliar has ventured out of the cosy non-threatening embrace of Q&A and the 7PM Project and has done a walkabout in a Brisbane shopping centre.

There she met the angry public :ok: There was one lady, bless her soul, that kept pushing about the televised "There will be no carbon tax on a government that I lead" issue. Juliar was totally, and I mean totally, out of her depth. So much so that her "minder" had to step in and try and explain things. The lady's reply? "I'm not a fool you know". Full marks to her.

It would appear that, again, this is not going Juliar's way. Wonder how long it will be before they dump her?

Deepsea Racing Prawn

13th Jul 2011, 12:59

Teal

13th Jul 2011, 13:23

Terry McCrann is usually a pretty smart business commentator (formerly Age/SMH/Fairfax newspapers, now News Limited) - below is his succinct view on the carbon tax:

HOW do you sensibly analyse an utter policy mishmash conceived in some phantasmagorical Julia-in-Wonderland Canberra world?

That is a mind-boggling combination of insanity and stupidity.

This is a policy that proudly boasts the average household will get $10.10 in compensation each week to cover the $9.90 in extra costs that households purportedly will face.

You can all save the Barrier Reef if not indeed the entire planet and be a thumping 20c a week better off. Every five months or so the average household will be able to shout itself a single cafe latte in collective celebration.

That a treasury could prepare figures of such exactitude, that a government and a prime minister could announce them, without the slightest sense of their fundamental and total absurdity, shows a major disconnect from reality.

That's reality in the broad: you reckon you can calculate the consequences of such mammoth and wide-sweeping change to our economy and our lives down to an exact 20c?

But also a disconnect in the privileged palaces and ivory towers of Canberra from the reality of people's everyday lives dealing with power price rises and those of food and all the rest in supermarkets.

We now have as official Gillard Government policy that the emissions from petrol used in cars and small trucks are OK; but the emissions from diesel used in semis are evil.

That a tonne of coal going into a power station is so bad that we must spend billions buying back and closing a big chunk of our coal-fired electricity sector.

But a tonne of our coal going into a Chinese power station is wonderful.

So it's bad for Australians to have cheap power from our coal, but it's just great for the Chinese to have cheap power from our coal. Can you get more Julia-in-Wonderland than that?

Joker89

13th Jul 2011, 22:18

DRP. I guess when you have nothing left to argue then it's only natural to sink to name calling.

Andu

13th Jul 2011, 23:17

DRP, I envy your certainty that everything Julair and her acolytes tell you about global warming is 100% true.

What part of "There will be no carbon tax in a government that I lead" don't you get?

7x7

13th Jul 2011, 23:26

Paul Kelly doesn't share your certainty, DeepSea Racing Prawn.

Carbon package built on a gamble | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/carbon-package-built-on-a-gamble/story-e6frgd0x-1226093408987)

The policy, above all, reflects two fundamental beliefs. First, that the science is right. For Labor and the Greens this is a no-brainer. They are contemptuous of doubts about the science… Labor’s policy is alarmist. Carbon pricing is essential because global temperatures “could rise” up to 6.4C by 2100… The only conclusion from this policy is that global warming has now become one of Labor’s deepest beliefs.

The second belief embedded in this policy is that the rest of the world is taking assertive action against global warming.

This theme underpins the entire policy and Treasury modelling. You may have thought Copenhagen was a setback for global action but this policy assumes the precise opposite. Australia is now taxing carbon on the basis that Copenhagen was a success. This follows pledges made at Copenhagen and affirmed later at Cancun…

Labor’s policy merrily asserts that “governments around the world” are acting on such commitments and, as a result, Australia’s price is its “fair share” in global terms.

These claims are heroic. They may be right. Yet such Cancun pledges are voluntary and non-binding… The truth is that real progress in each nation will be determined by domestic politics… The extent to which these ambitious pledges are realised remains highly uncertain and Labor’s assumption may be optimistic folly.

CoodaShooda

14th Jul 2011, 00:03

DSRP

In a free, democratic society, you would deny us the right to be myopic, self-centred, luddite flat-earthers?

I have no problem with you expressing your views here, along with everyone else. In fact, you might be able to help me with something that has been troubling me for the past 4 years and which, as yet, remains unanswered.

Just what has the Labor Government done since 2007 to warrant our support?

Deepsea Racing Prawn

14th Jul 2011, 00:09

Great...let's start cut and pasting from News Limited columnists, there's no bias there.:hmm:

Deepsea Racing Prawn

14th Jul 2011, 00:15

CoodaShooda

Why would anyone want to deny you the right to be myopic, self-centred, luddite flat-earthers ?

That's entirely your choice.

Andu

14th Jul 2011, 00:20

Deepsea, you ask: Why would anyone want to deny you the right to be myopic, self-centred, luddite flat-earthers ? Errr.. history and recent events would suggest that you and people like you would, actually.

From my post#122:

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Conservative and Labour/Greens, I'm all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Conservative supporter doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Labour/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is gay, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labour/Green is gay, he demands legislated respect.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Labour/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labour/Greens demand that those they don't like should be banned.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Labour/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)"They're will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead."

Technically, maybe she could be said not to be lying in forcing this highly unpopular tax upon us now, for the government we have today could be said to actually be lead by Bob Brown rather than Julai(r) Gillard.

Deepsea Racing Prawn

14th Jul 2011, 01:48

Andu

From your post#122

If a Conservative supporter doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.

Was it not the Howard government that passed gun control legislation?

CoodaShooda

14th Jul 2011, 02:01

Why would anyone want to deny you the right to be myopic, self-centred, luddite flat-earthers ?

That's entirely your choice.

Quite right. So why be disappointed?

Now, about that other question? :E

Deepsea Racing Prawn

14th Jul 2011, 02:43

I see no issue with being disappointed in another persons point of view, it's not the same as trying to deny them their point of view.

Now, the other question....for starters, we do have an economy that is the envy of the developed world, and, like it or not, the Rudd governments stimulus package did protect us from the worst of the GFC.

Now a question for you...explain to me the benefits of Tony Abbott's Direct Action Scheme, a scheme that not one australian economist backs.

sisemen

14th Jul 2011, 03:07

Err...perhaps Juliar is the biggest fan DRP

The government's entire supply side case collapsed when it abandoned any pretence that the tax would clean up power stations and instead turned to the heart of the Coalition Direct Action policy to do this.
After months of denying it, the government leaked that it had been secretly negotiating with the brown coal power generators to pay for a switch from coal to gas.
The reason of course is that the carbon tax will fail to achieve this objective.
In short, the ALP's decision to use Direct Action incentives to address the power sector was complete capitulation on two fronts.
Not only will a carbon tax fail to clean up any power stations, but the Direct Action approach of targeted incentives will work to convert coal to gas.

CoodaShooda

14th Jul 2011, 03:38

Oh dear Mr Prawn, how disappointing.

A 2 speed economy, with 0% business and consumer confidence and a government debt of $195 billion that is growing larger every day

v

The US, the Eurozone, Japan, Africa, South America...........hmm, I see what you mean.

Isn't there a school of thought among economists that the GFC was a Northern Hemisphere issue that little affected Australasia and that the stimulus package was poorly handled and added unnecessary inflationary pressures leading to rate rises?

sisemen

Did you know our trawlers are having a bumper season this year? Pulling in prawns everywhere.

Frank Arouet

14th Jul 2011, 04:31

Don't encourage the Red Troll Bar prawn. There are some people who will defend the most irresponsible actions simply because they are devout blind followers of the faith.

Anybody who defends this government is beyond help.

Ovation

14th Jul 2011, 04:43

It’s disappointing to see so many myopic, self-centred, luddite flat-earthers on this forum. (Could be forgiven for thinking it is a discussion amongst a group of Tea Party members.)

Although it’s not surprising given the dose of right-wing News Ltd diatribe that the general public are exposed to everyday.

Deep Sea Racing Prawn- -Did you write that yourself or was it a cut and paste from the Get-Up Manual of Gratuitous Insults?

My fellow Luddites and Flat Earthers respond well to logical argument, the occasional odd bit of humour, but you opening contribution Post #145 is insulting.

The following is from Post #42 from Andy RR, which makes a lot of sense to me. You seem to be informed on the subject - what part of it do you disagree with (and why)?

Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen - that's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
The next 9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre. The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot. 96% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 14 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch. That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 14 millimetres Australia puts in 0.21 of a millimetre. About the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway.

We'd laugh ourselves silly.

Deepsea Racing Prawn

14th Jul 2011, 06:49

Deep Sea Racing Prawn- -Did you write that yourself or was it a cut and paste from the Get-Up Manual of Gratuitous Insults?

I wrote it myself, however looking back, it probably was a little harshly worded. (I was a bit hot under the collar after reading post #112.) V-Jet, either that was a poor attempt at humour or this debate is wandering into dangerous territory.

Frank, I have only been attempting to provide another viewpoint in this one-sided discussion. Obviously our political views will never match, but that’s OK. At least in this country there’s no chance of ending up in a gulag for having a particular political view.

Ovation, I did read post #42 from Andy RR. However I have to agree with the reply 18-Wheeler provided at post #54.

Andu

14th Jul 2011, 07:00

At least in this country there’s no chance of ending up in a gulag for having a particular political view.Prawn, I sincerely hope you remain right in that comment well into the future.

However, if the Watermelons ever get into a position of such power that they can rule alone, I fear they will drop their sheep's clothing and show their true colours, colours which brook no argument with dissenting views "because they know what's good for us all' - whether we want it or not.

Teal

14th Jul 2011, 07:12

.....we do have an economy that is the envy of the developed world...DSRP - I seem to recall that Julia used those exact words yesterday.....:hmm:

There is a considered view among many economic commentators that our economy is in fact very fragile, and that some the most recent indicators (consumer confidence, housing prices, retail sales etc) coupled with developments in Europe and the US point to - at the very least - a weakening of our economy.

....the Rudd governments stimulus package did protect us from the worst of the GFC....DSRP - That would be the Building Education Revolution (huge cost blowouts) and the Pink Batts scheme (huge cost blowouts - and deaths). And the Cash for Clunkers scheme (huge cost blowouts) - originally budgeted at just under $400 million but the costs came in at over $800 million. All three are small schemes when put up against the Carbon Tax. Do you honestly believe government estimates that this new tax will only cost $9.90 per person per week?:rolleyes:

7x7

14th Jul 2011, 07:46

...and Deep Sea Prawn, if you believe the Treasury figures that, after the government handouts, the average household will be 10 cents - not nine cents, not eleven cents, but ten cents better off - after the carbon tax kicks in, I really despair for your niavete.

Stationair8

14th Jul 2011, 07:56

Afghanistan is looking like a nice place to live, with the Gillard/Brown/Milne circus running the country.

CoodaShooda

14th Jul 2011, 10:11

I wouldn't go quite as far as to say that Stationair. We'll still be a comparatively comfortable country no matter how much damage the Gillard Greens do to the middle class in the meantime.

However, listening to Brown and Milne going on about "reviewing" media ownership etc, I somehow found my thoughts going to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Now that was a scary thought.

Worrals in the wilds

14th Jul 2011, 10:28

At least in this country there’s no chance of ending up in a gulag for having a particular political view.No thanks to Labor, just ask Peter Simpson, who was finally ex-communicated a couple of months ago. The current ALP doctrine is Party line Or Else, it's only fortunate that they're too disorganized to set up a gulag (and Queensland's too broke:{). The only dissenter they tolerate is Kevvy and that's because they really need Griffith. :E
Socialist Party (Australia) » Blog Archive » ETU opposes privatisation and talks about a split with ALP! (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/2852)
When even the Socialist Party is publishing articles criticising the ALP it's safe to say that they've lost their core constituents...

Frank Arouet

14th Jul 2011, 11:18

Frank, I have only been attempting to provide another viewpoint in this one-sided discussion.

Anybody who tries to defend this government's inititives to date is as culpable as them, so you are correct our political views will never match

Give it away buddy while you still have a chance to maintain some dignity.

Deepsea Racing Prawn

14th Jul 2011, 11:53

Anybody who tries to defend this government's inititives to date is as culpable as them

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I certainly don't agree with it, but hey, that's life.

Joker89

14th Jul 2011, 12:18

Fanta pants shed a tear talking to the press club. Wonder what that tactic is. Are we now supposed to feel sorry for her, she certainly doesn't care about anyone else but herself and holding onto power.

Rudd must be loving this.

Sunfish

14th Jul 2011, 12:26

One day there needs to be a sit in...

Canberra to be jammed solid with GA and RAA aircraft so that nothing moves, and a list of demands.....

sisemen

14th Jul 2011, 15:46

Fanta pants shed a tear talking to the press club. Wonder what that tactic is.

Juliar is in trouble again. The massed hordes are not flocking to her as a saviour (apart from some misguided souls who appear on these pages from time to time). Therefore the spin doctors have decreed that a carefully scripted "real Julia" will emerge once again.

So is this the real Julia, or was that the real Julia, or the other real Julia, or the real real Julia?

The only real tears that we'll see is when she's feeling sorry for herself after an ignominious sacking - either by the ALP or the electorate.

It's-a-comin' Juliar :E And that's really real and no amount of wishing by the raw prawn or the tea bar et al is gonna change it.

Chimbu chuckles

14th Jul 2011, 18:44

So DSRP how much will the Earth's temperature be lowered by the Carbon Dioxide Tax?

PeterP

14th Jul 2011, 20:48

I think the RAAA has a point:
Australia's carbon tax blasted by small carriers - SkyLand (http://skyland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/australias-carbon-tax-blasted)
How do you balance carbon use with community survival? In Oz, the very idea of sustainability without aviation is simply ridiculous.
For example, let's kill off the Royal Flying Doctor Service, eh? Uses carbon so tax it out of existence ... good idea?
Eco-nazis need to recognise that today's world has a requirement for essential air services - community, rescue, protection, security, emergency, defence, medivac, education, integration, and on and on. You simply cannot tax such vital lifelines out of existence.
IMHO!

Ultralights

14th Jul 2011, 21:38

You simply cannot tax such vital lifelines out of existence.

sadly, as Bob Juliar Brown has proven, yes you can!

Frank Arouet

14th Jul 2011, 22:33

CASA must be splitting their sides with laughter. Jools is doing what they've been trying to complete for years. I guess any increase in aviation fuel will go to CASA to continue to work on a no aviation environment.

Tough times for them indeed. Perhaps re-train them to become carbon police.

Stationair8

14th Jul 2011, 23:50

Perhaps Qantas will reinvent itself and divest itself of those filthy planes invest in sailing ships and stagecoaches to have the opporchewinity to move forward and turn the corner?

7x7

15th Jul 2011, 00:12

Or go back to their roots and buy some Avro 504s to replace the A380s. (That'll give them a smaller carbon footprint - and make about as much sense as some of the other QF management decisions over the last 15 years.)

I've just discovered some great therapy - when julair gillard (she doesn't deserve uuper case) appears on TV, I scream loudly at the set. Just as it did for Peter Finch's character in 'Newsfront', it really works. I feel better.

If we all took it the same length as Peter Finch did in the movie and stuck our heads out the window to cry "I've had enough!", I wonder how many neighbours we'd meet?

Worrals in the wilds

15th Jul 2011, 00:20

Or how about some really big gliders?
I'm still waiting with avid interest to find out how Bob's high speed train is going to run without coal. Maybe all the passengers have to pull it.
I wonder how many neighbours we'd meet?
You'd probably meet your local coppers before too long, as well. :}

Pinky the pilot

15th Jul 2011, 03:04

I wonder just how much longer Juliar will wear out the shoe leather travelling the country trying to sell the wealth redistribution tax if she continues to meet people who call her a liar to her face. :hmm:

If we all took it the same length as Peter Finch did in the movie and stuck our heads out the window to cry "I've had enough!", I wonder how many neighbours we'd meet?

You'd probably meet your local coppers before too long, as well

And possibly some nice medical officers as well.:}

Andu

15th Jul 2011, 04:03

I can attest that shouting abuse at JG's image on TV is very therapeutic. Quite soothing, in fact.

But only if there's no one else at home at the time, and probably best if you keep it down to a level where the neighbours don't hear you.:)

Charlie Foxtrot India

15th Jul 2011, 05:20

Many years ago, my grandmother would get up and HISS loudly at the TV whenever Harold Wilson was on. I can now see how she felt.

CoodaShooda

15th Jul 2011, 05:54

From an e-mail doing the rounds

Reasons Why I Voted for Bob Brown & the Greens

I voted Green because I believe oil companies profits of 4% on a litre of petrol are obscene, but my government taxing the same litre of petrol at 27.5% isn’t.
I voted Green because I believe my government will do a better job of spending the money you earn than you would.
I voted Green because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
. I voted Green because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
I voted Green because I think illegal aliens have a right to free housing, health care, education, and welfare benefits – and the right to change our society to suit their cultural demands .
I voted Green because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to my government for redistribution as we Greens see fit.
I voted Green because I believe ‘enlightened progressive’ judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
I voted Green because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people for their oil who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or frog.
I voted Green because I want to convert Australia to a ‘carbon neutral green economy’ to create jobs – even after Spain has proven the green economy destroys three times as many jobs as it creates and leads to 20 percent unemployment.
I voted Green because my head is so firmly planted up my arse, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever see another point of view.

Charlie Foxtrot India

15th Jul 2011, 07:46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH_MBwQhGgA

Andu

15th Jul 2011, 08:17

Sadly, that's a distressingly accurate skit - and the 'head in the clouds' politicians such people voted into having the balance of power will control the Australian political landscape for the next 2 and possibly 5 years.

A survey was conducted in the Illawarra Region a week before Mz Gillard announced the details of her carbon tax. (The Illawarra centres on Wollongong, which as major steel production and coal mining in the area, and of course, is a Labor stronghold.)

The survey found that the local Federal members, (all Labor), would all retain their seats, but with major reductions in their margins. What stunned me (but perhaps shouldn't have) was that in abandoning Labor, most would register their protest against Labor by switching their vote to the Greens, increasing the Greens vote to 18%. Things are so bad for the Gillard government that rusted on Labor voters, as so many of the people of Woolongong are, have abandoned them - but could not ever bring themselves to vote for 'the Tories' - so they vote *** Greens! Talk about out of the frying pan into the blast furnace!!

Jabawocky

15th Jul 2011, 11:40

Frank :ok:

FACTS are facts. Let's examine some in simple terms.

Greenies claimed man made CO2 was climbing rapidly, and it was, however NON-man made CO2 was also climbing unassisted by man.

Average global temperature was rising up until 1998-2001 and this is undesputed too.

Greenies claimed that the man made effect was so immediate and controlling that a 6 degree rise was likely in a very short time.

Now let's look at a similar time frame, say 10 years.......what happened in the last ten years?? Well man made CO2 has continued to climb, yet temperature has fallen.

All the above are facts.

Now if man made CO2 was so effective 10-20 years ago at raising temps, why then is it not now despite even more CO2?

Forget getting heavy science out here. Study the above facts which are acknowledged by both sides and explain it.

It's simple..... It's solar energy, the very thing greenies want to harness that controls global climate.

When the governments in 10-30 years wake up to this....we will all be laughing this off like the coming ice age in the 70's, running out of oil in the early 80's, AIDS killing us all in the 90's and the millennium bug of the late 90's.

If any of you want to know more go find a REAL climate scientist (real ones are very rare) and study the topics (40+ of them) for around a year or two. That's when you really start to get good advice.......pity Julia did not.

7x7

15th Jul 2011, 22:42

It's hard to avoid thinking that Malcolm Turnbull isn't Kevin Rudd's Liberal doppelganger.

The parallels, apart from both being ditched from the leadership by their respective Parties, are striking.

- both are independently (very) rich;

- both consider themselves (possibly with good reason) to be infinitely more intelligent than the person who replaced (knifed?) them, along with everyone else within their Parties who collaborated in their knifing;

- both were/are (in political terms at least) demagogues, with personalities definitely not suited to democratic politics. Rudd was/is a micro manager who wanted to control every aspect of every policy right down to a level that could and should have been handled by the office boy - and would/will brook no contrary opinion; Turnbull had/has the personality and management style of a CEO. He (and only he) would make a decision and expect it to acted upon without further discussion and could see no need for compromise, that all important word which is the 'meat and three veg' of political life.

As such, for all their admirable intelligence and good traits, (and even after considering the faults of the duo who have replaced them), neither was - and is - suitable for the leadership position.

If the current political situation was a Greek tragedy, (which many would say it definitely is), Malcolm and Kevin would be two characters connected to the same puppeteer's one set of strings, each condenmed to do whatever the other does - and in this (hopefully final) Act, their joint task would seem to be to wilfully destroy their respective leader.

Along with many others, I have some misgivings about Tony Abbott, but I can't help but feel that Labor see him as a very effective and very dangerous Leader of the Opposition. If he was the disaster they and their compliant mainstream media continually keep reminding us he is, they wouldn't be saying a word of criticism about him, for they'd want him to remain in the leadership position. (And for those who might try to draw a parallel to the Libs' criticism of Juliar Gillard, it doesn't wash - Leaders of the Opposition can't enact terribly damaging and controversial policies, especially policies they promised immediately before the election that they would not enact; Prime Ministers can.)

Frank Arouet

15th Jul 2011, 23:06

Turnbull is a merchant banker. (full stop)...

Merchant bankers will be in anything to make a quid. (full stop)....

Keating, I think, said, never get between Malcolm Turnbull and a bucket of money.....

Can you see where I'm going here?

Now as for the effectiveness of a carbon tax, a Labor identity said on ABC this morning, well,, it's a bit like a pool fence. It's impossible to say how many little kids have been saved over any period, only that it has prevented any. Based on this we will have to wait 100 years to find out if the tax worked or not.

Well, I'm not waiting around for that.:)

Andu

15th Jul 2011, 23:32

Turnbull is also the local rep. for Goldman Sachs, the owners of the (currently near worthless) Carbon Bank, so of course he's going to support a carbon tax.

If it goes ahead, the merchant bankers are going to find themselves back in another 'glory days', a repeat of those heady pre-GFC days, where they'll all make a fortune trading in carbon credits, producing nothing - except paperwork and enormous profits for no one but themselves.

Ultralights

16th Jul 2011, 00:38

funny that analogy about the pool fence, last year i read a report stating that since the introduction of mandatory pool fencing, there has been no change to the national average of drownings in domestic pools.

Andu

16th Jul 2011, 02:18

Maybe so, Ultralights, but think of all those Council inspectors who had careers created 'out of the blue' (green?) checking all those back yards.

And the motor retailers who've profited from supplying all those Pool Inspectors' cars.

And the pool fence installers who had jobs created out of the blue by the legislation.

And the (gasp!) steel manufacturers who built the fences. (Oh my God!!! I hope they didn't add too much to this country's carbon footprint building all those steel fences.)

And the lawyers and all the court staff who wouldn't have had the income created by all those cases prosecuting homeowners who didn't have properly installed pool fences.

And the builders who profited as all those council offices had to be expanded to fit in the pool inspectors' offices.

I could continue...

7x7

17th Jul 2011, 08:22

Think La Gillard might be about to suffer a major health crisis or some such? (Or some - any - face-saving excuse to allow her to retire 'gaaysfullie', as shy girls do.)

Former prime minister John Howard warns of lonely emissions trading path for Australia | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/prime-minister-julia-gillard-defends-carbon-tax-ad-spend/story-fn7x8me2-1226096117237)

Gillard 'not worried about' leadership

Mr Howard's comments came as prime minister Gillard this morning denied sounding out Labor Party caucus members for their support for her leadership.Apparently, the odds on Simon Crean have plummeted, so much so that some are asking if there isn't some 'insider information' (a la the recent AFL scandal) within the Labor Party that's caused the run on the betting shops. One of the major betting companies has stopped taking bets on Crean.

Worrals in the wilds

17th Jul 2011, 09:30

Think La Gillard might be about to suffer a major health crisis or some such?A few knives in the toga sort of thing? :}
[Julius Caesar to Marcus Antonius] Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond' Cassius has a mean and hungy look, he thinks too much; such men are dangerous. :E
Julius Caesar, Act 1 Scene 2
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/06/28/1225885/411821-julia-gillard-amp-simon-crean.jpg

Jabawocky

17th Jul 2011, 11:10

No. 1 ON AUSTRALIA'S MOST-HATED VERMIN LIST
HIGHLY VENOMOUS & WILFULLY DESTRUCTIVE
FAT RED-HEADED LIAR BIRD

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/FRHLB.jpg

sisemen

17th Jul 2011, 14:50

Apparently, the odds on Simon Crean have plummeted

An interesting post.

The ALP and its apologists should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. This carbon tax was brought in purely to appease the Greens and to keep Labor in power. Presumably Juliar, having made the famous promise, thought that she had enough time and personality to sweet-talk Australia into accepting a policy that she had promised to take to the people for concensus prior to an election where she hoped that she would be swept to power again.

Probably it has now become apparent to the ALP hierarchy that they are doomed to electoral oblivion if they continue with Gillard and they might survive with enough credibility intact to rebuild after the next election with someone else. Crean is probably the safest pair of hands to manage the dissolution and election at this point. Hopefully he would call a double dissolution and give us the chance to also cast our opinion on feotid rat turds called the Greens.

If it happens I suspect that a lot of people on here will rush to be able to say 'told you so' to the "dear departed". Unfortunately it has taken the almost ruination of this country to get to this point and for that I feel profoundly saddened.

Andu

17th Jul 2011, 23:12

I've just caught the end of a Gillard meeting with "business leaders" on Sky News where she fielded a series of what could only be called drooling, sycophantic "Dorothy Dix" questions from an adoring audience.

I could not help but think that the audience of so-called "business leaders" was as stacked with ALP and Greens cronies as the Galaxy seminars were.

Today's Neilson poll:
Primary vote:
61% Coalition under Abbott
26% Labor GOING UNDER under Gillard

Frank Arouet

17th Jul 2011, 23:44

Crean is probably the safest pair of hands

Another card carrying left wing idiot brainwashed by his father Frank who redefined communism. The only hope we have with a leadership change is to get someone the Governor General hates so much she may "do a Kerr". Unfortunately, since she is Shorten's mother in law and probably enfused with the same zeal, this would be unlikely.

Although, if Shorten took the job, it would be grounds for a Royal intervention.

Worrals in the wilds

17th Jul 2011, 23:57

I'd be massively surprised if the current G-G did a Kerr unless she was really backed into a corner, it's well known in Qld that she's as Labor as they come and always has been.

Andu

18th Jul 2011, 00:12

Royal intervention? I don't think you'd have any trouble getting a bookie to take your money at any odds you'd like to name for that bet, Frank. Even I would demonstrate in the streets against that.

In the highly unlikely event that it was to happen, I think even Tony Abbott would ignore it, because I don't think there's an Australian politician drawing breath today who wouldn't recognise backing a royal intervention as long term (if not short term) political suicide.

What is really scaring me is the message that's coming repeatedly from Gillard and Brown - that the ''factually incorrect" line being touted by elements within the media (read: the Murdoch Press and Andrew Bolt) needs to be countered.

It's a very short step from that line of argument to imposing censorship "for the good of the nation". They're already saying (see Gillard's 'don't print crap' speech to an adoring Press Club last week) that counter arguments should be muzzled "so that the true message can be given to the people". (Starting last night, see the $23 million of taxpayers' money they're spending on what can only be called a propaganda campaign.)

I'm sure there were some in Germany who were poo-hooed and derided when they expressed such reservations about Hitler's growing power.

I think that old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" might apply to Australia in the coming years.

Frank Arouet

18th Jul 2011, 02:20

Yes I would also oppose any Royal intervention, however if Shorten were to become PM with his mother in law as GG, (the Queen's representative), there would be a massive conflict of interests. That would concern me more.

Actually it concerns me, but is not surprising with this mob, that a Republican would give another Republican a Royal representative role.

Gillard is the face to hate, but the real problem is the Greens who she needs to massage to maintain power. And that's what it's all about. Power which is already corrupted and can soon be absolutely corrupted.

I wouldn't put it past the scheming shrew to dump the Greens prior to the next election, but well after she has got her agenda items through the Senate.

Worrals in the wilds

18th Jul 2011, 03:06

Sure, that would be a massive COI, I would have thought Quentin would stand down if Shorten became The Man, but anything's possible...

Re the press, I'd be interested to know how much influence they have on public political opinion these days. Personally I think that even if the government took over every media source in the country and filled them with glowing propaganda, people would still be dirty about them. So much political advertising is hammy, over the top and badly done (and that's from both sides) that I think it often has the opposite effect to what was intended.

A lot of people I deal with don't read or listen to any news coverage except for the gruesome crime stories, sport and weather. They either think the political coverage is boring or don't believe a word of it. Either way, three cheers for the Internet! That was one thing they didn't have in 1930s Germany. Even the once invincible Syrian and Iranian propaganda machines have been left floundering against the onslaught of camera phones and FB.

CoodaShooda

18th Jul 2011, 03:43

Either way, three cheers for the Internet!

Soon to be under the total control of NBN, which is controlled by.............

I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory here to be had. :E

Andu

18th Jul 2011, 04:24

You beat me to it, Cooda.

Did anyone hear Gillard's interview on the ABC breakfast programme on Adelaide this morning? (If anyone knows how to post a sound file of it, it would be priceless). One of the two interviewers asked Gillard if she hadn't considered that the problem causing the government's appallingly bad polls might not be the Party's policies, but her, and if she recognised this, whether she should stand down?

That lad will be drummed out of the ABC Joolaya glee club.

Frank Arouet

18th Jul 2011, 04:56

Conroy has been bleeting on about the Daily Telegraph bias that he sees as undermining Labor's policies. Someone should tell him to check the ABC for bias before attacking others.

"Your ABC" has become "their ABC".

CoodaShooda

18th Jul 2011, 05:13

What are they putting in Brisbane's water, Worralls

From a recent local newspaper (read to the bottom)

http://www.tradetools.com/LocalDocuments/MAINSTORE/LatestPressAds/SundayMail_100711.pdf

Worrals in the wilds

18th Jul 2011, 06:39

Well, it makes a change from makita wielding bikini babes...:ooh:
They're a business that knows how to appeal to their target customers (copious photos of bikini babes, usually) so I'd say they've figured out there's mass appeal to tradies and DIYers with a Julia Sucks article.

Brisbane's traditionally fairly ALP but the right-wing, union head kicker variety. Even the inner city trendies are much less leftie/ tree hugging than the southern species. The student union brigade calling the shots in Canberra are really failing to appeal to the average Brisbane worker and that article is miles politer than some of the stuff that's being said around town by former diehard Labor types.

Dark Knight

18th Jul 2011, 06:42

When the Fairfax press (The Age/SMH) sponsored poll is so disastrously against Gillard & Labor and:

The papers readers comments, the majority of which, run against Julia and her Carbon dioxide TAX, the inescapable conclusion is Julia is gone; Done & Dusted!

Just remains to get the tea towel out to wipe up the tears; the dust pan out to scrape up the pieces and put them in the Trash can!

Andu

18th Jul 2011, 09:28

Barry Cassidy from Insiders interviewed on Channel 10's 7pm Project tonight was asked whether the problem was the Carbon Tax or Julia Gillard. His answer, given that it came from an ABC anchor man, was telling: "It's a bit of both."

However, he went on to say that after rolling the Ruddster, they're (and therefore WE'RE) stuck with her until the next election "or face losing what little credibility they have left".

Given that with almost 80 percent of the electorate, they don't have any credibility left to lose, that could well mean that she'll be gone within a month. It all depends on how many times we hear senior ALP functionaries saying that she enjoys their support "100%". The more times we hear that, the less safe her position becomes.

What would they do with her if they rolled her? Surely not another Rudd-style deal, (please, not Foreign Affairs or the UN!!!!), although I can't see her retiring quietly to Altona. One option: one of our esteemed universities would give her tenure teaching politics or economics. Now that would be a course with major street cred - NOT!

Joker89

18th Jul 2011, 09:47

Is there even a labor minister who has spent any time in the real world.

Swan. Degree is in public administration, no idea on economics
Gillard. Left wing spinster lawyer.
Crean. Unionist, never had a real job
Combet. As above
Wong. Give me a break
Shorten. Another career unionist
Rudd. Lifetime pubic servant
Albanese. Life long party ferret.

At least on the other side people tend to have some career or business experience before entering politics.

bentleg

18th Jul 2011, 11:05

The BIG problem with the current political situation is that Julia did a deal with the greens and independents to get into government. Labor won't roll Julia because if they did they would lose government and their power. Similarly thay won't drop the policy because they would lose green support and lose government. The independents won't roll her because they would lose power and government.

So....we are stuck until the next election. And Federal labor is looking more and more like NSW labor.......lemmings headed for a cliff.

7x7

18th Jul 2011, 11:19

I agree with all your comments but this one, bentleg:

Similarly they won't drop the policy because they would lose green support and lose government. It's probably too late now, for Gillard has invested too much of her political credibility in the tax now, but for the life of me, I can't see why she doesn't stick to her previous form and nenege on the agreement with the Greens (as she has with every other damned political promise she's ever made).

The Greens have nowhere to go. There's no way they'll ever walk out on Labor, whatever Labor does, for Abbott will never never co-operate with the Greens now. Last August, yes... buy now? No way - and the Greens know it. He's well aware of the current public mood and if he's put in a position to do so, he'll go to an election, possibly even a double dissolution if he can, to gut both Labor, but more importantly, the Greens, who are increasingly being seen by the conservatives as a far bigger threat than Labor.

So in my humble opinion, Jools could do the chicken dance on Brown's head (an appealing vision in more than one way) while burning every ton of brown coal in Gippsland and Brown would stand there with that annoying bland smile planted firmly on his dial, for he can only enjoy the trappings of power with Labor on the government benches. I can't understand why Gillard didn't - doesn't - see that from the start.

Worrals in the wilds

18th Jul 2011, 11:55

FWIW I don't think the Greens and Libs ever would have done a deal. Both parties have a degree of integrity to their core message. We blame the Greens for their policies and with due cause (because they're nuts) but to be fair to them, apart from dropping Freedom For Moo Cows off the manifesto they've basically stuck to their principles. The only reason they've gotten air time beyond JJJ and Greenpeace student recruitment sessions is because federal Labor have thrown in their lot with them and ceded their own manifesto to retain shared power. Trouble is, it seems that the ALP has ended up being the minor party.
The BIG problem with the current political situation is that Julia did a deal with the greens and independents to get into government. Labor won't roll Julia because if they did they would lose government and their power. Similarly thay won't drop the policy because they would lose green support and lose government. The independents won't roll her because they would lose power and government.

And they're one retirement, dummy spit or unscheduled health issue (perish the thought) away from a by-election. If that by-election were to go the other way, they're stoofed. The ALP/independents must hope that everyone's taking their vitamins :E!

sisemen

18th Jul 2011, 15:34

It's official - Juliar's gone!

Well, it has to be. Paul Howes has said on tonight's Lateline that he supports her 100% and she herself confirmed that she has the party support and will lead them into the 2013 election.

A week???

Andu

18th Jul 2011, 22:44

She's painted herself into a very tight corner, to the point where she now simply has to tough it out and win the electorate over or be consigned to the political scrapheap - far, far further down the oblivion tube than Mark Latham.

She and her minders recognise this, and so all she can do is "go for broke", sell, sell and keep on selling the message, she hopes until (although some would hope 'if') enough people start, even grudgingly, to admire her resolve and start listening.

However, her biggest problem in doing this is.... herself. She's so damaged 'brand Julia(r)' with her total lack of honesty that we who oppose her can only hope it is irredeemable. Any stunt she pulls now, be it a wedding, another almost weepie 'shy goirl' moment, or who knows what else, will be seen for what it will be - a focus group inspired, contrived stunt.

My guess is that at the very top of her wish list is that Tony Abbott will make a mistake - not an impossibility. Or more likely, that Malcolm Turnbull will damage Abbott - a far higher possibility. Whatever, she simply has to hang in there and keep braying... (sorry) talking up the carbon 'pollution', relying on Dr Goebbel's tried and true dictum that if you repeat the lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

The Australian voters have proven in the past that they'll fall for this. Juliar's hoping they will again.

(With apologies to Elton john and 'Norma Jean')

Goodbye Jul-ee-arr
Though you promised “no carbon tax”
You introduced one anyway
At the insistence of the Greens

Even though you lied,
The Press still ad-ore you
All the papers have to say
Is that Julia is “true blue”

And it seems to me
That your whole life
Has been one gigantic lie
You’ll tell porkie after porkie
Just to get your way

How I would have liked to know you
Back at Unley High
On Struggle Street
When you were such a “shy giorl”

Cause shy you’re not, not anymore
And I doubt you ever were
And in spite of what you say
You didn’t come from Struggle Street

Like everything you say
It’s just another lie

Goodbye Jul-ee-arr
Hope I don’t see you anymore
And hope we don’t have to wait
Two more years
To be rid of you.

Pinky the pilot

19th Jul 2011, 03:55

Was it also Paul Howes who said that he would 'bet his house' on Juliar leading them to the next election?:uhoh:

Those words may come back to haunt him methinks.

Andu; :ok:

Saltie

19th Jul 2011, 05:30

Howes made that remark on the 7 pm Project last night and Andrew Bolt was quick to say that Howes had not actually registered the bet with Centrebet. (If that means anything.)

Another case of giving himself wriggle room? (Like the "if one job is lost" promise that now "didn't really mean quite that". Now it means "if one employer lays somone off unnecessarily using the carbon tax as an excuse - and it has to be unnecessary, as Joolya's compensation will "ensure" no one loses his or her job.)

If he really has bet his house on it, despite the brave face, I would imagine he's one worried little vegemite - and likely to become moreso.

CharlieLimaX-Ray

19th Jul 2011, 06:01

Paul Howes always reminds me of a dog trying to fornicate with a football.

Typical labor union muppet, now supports the carbon tax(only because Julia told him too!), too bad if you are a union member that work's in the coal fired power stations around Latrobe Valley

Worrals in the wilds

19th Jul 2011, 10:04

Paul Howes always reminds me of a dog trying to fornicate with a football.

ROLFMAO.
Or a union member working in the power industry, the transport industry, the manufacturing industry or pretty much any industry except the spin industry. :*

Fubaar

20th Jul 2011, 05:38

I see Jools today (rugged up very heavily to combat the 'global warming' we're encountering in Oz at the moment) said she thought that the Murdoch press here in Oz should be investigated.

Anything to shut up those who don't agree with 'the company line'.

Frank Arouet

20th Jul 2011, 05:54

Can we read anything into Rudd taking a two month "sickie"- like getting out of the kitchen while the knives are being thrown? Is non urgent elective surgery, or just convenient at the moment.

I hope they don't dump the witch though, I'll have nobody to bitch about and it may improve their chances at any upcoming election.:oh:

Fubaar

20th Jul 2011, 06:20

When I heard that Kevvie's surgery would have him out of the picture for a long time, I have to admit that I had thoughts along a similar line, Frank.

He's

(a) reminding Juliar that just one man - him - could upset her very tenuous apple cart if his health was put at risk, while

(b) putting himself well clear of the sh1tstorm he knows is about to hit the fan over this misbegotten carbon dioxide tax.

If he has a good excuse to keep himself well out of the public limelight for the next month or two, I imagine he's delusional enough to think he might be called back to lead the trainwreck to resurrection. The Australian electorate has shown it can do some really stupid things, so I suppose I shouldn't rule that out.

Put it this way... I wouldn't do a Paul Howes and bet my house on it not happening. I used to hate Rudd's hectoring, smartarse school masterish voice, particularly whe he tried (oh so unsuccessfully) to be one of the boys. God got me though - look (or listen!!! Arrrgghhhh!!!) what he gave us to replace it.

Video - The nasal drawl of Julia Gillard - The Age (http://media.theage.com.au/entertainment/red-carpet/the-nasal-drawl-of-julia-gillard-1683198.html)

(Endure the ad. you have to listen to before the clip starts. It's worth it. However, my South Australian friends say the lady is dead wrong - that accent is definitely NOT South Australian. It's unique.)

sisemen

20th Jul 2011, 07:32

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd's heart was not the only Labor one fluttering when he announced he would undergo surgery to replace an aortic valve.
The premature retirement, forced resignation or death of one of its MPs is not something the Gillard government wants to contemplate as it plumbs new depths in the latest opinion polls.
Especially when one of its chief backers, independent MP Tony Windsor, says a Labor win at the next general election is unlikely.

I wonder if they will be able to find it :E

Wonder if Windsor is thinking of changing horses to save his sorry ass?

bentleg

20th Jul 2011, 07:39

Wonder if Windsor is thinking of changing horses to save his sorry ass?

He said he is not changing horses. If he did we could have a vote of no-confidence and a general election. Yay!

Ovation

20th Jul 2011, 07:55

Second time he's been under the knife in a little over 12 months, only this time from the front instead of the back. :ooh:

I read somewhere today there's an average of 3.5 by-elections for each Parliament, and that if the opinion polls were repeated evenly then any by-election north of Newcastle and west of Adelaide would rid us of this evil minority government.

Andu

20th Jul 2011, 09:50

For his sake, I hope this next incision heals a lot better than the festering sore that remains from that last knife job he underwent.

Frank Arouet

20th Jul 2011, 23:36

I am interested- does he leave a proxy? Does someone get two votes?

When the bells ring can he use the phone to cast his vote during that 8 weeks?

When does Parliament resume from the winter break?

bentleg

20th Jul 2011, 23:46

I am interested- does he leave a proxy? Does someone get two votes?

The custom is to grant a pair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention)) in such circumstances. The other party agrees to have one less vote in the house, which maintains the status quo. I think it rather unlikely that Libs would break away from this convention.

When does Parliament resume from the winter break?

Tuesday 16 August (http://www.aph.gov.au/House/info/sittings/index.htm)

Frank Arouet

21st Jul 2011, 01:36

Thanks.

As much as I would love to see someone, /anyone, from Labor just go away, I hope his op goes well. His presence and unpredictable hold on her, must piss Gillard off something terrible.

chimbu warrior

21st Jul 2011, 01:38

An interesting approach by US regulators............

Proposed House bill would 'prohibit' US airlines from participating in EU ETS | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/bipartisan-supported-proposed-house-bill-would-prohibit-us-ai?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtwDailyNews+%28ATW+Daily+News%29)

MTOW

22nd Jul 2011, 04:07

Labor facing backdown on pledge to send recent boatpeople arrivals to third country | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-facing-backdown-on-pledge-to-send-recent-boatpeople-arrivals-to-third-country/story-fn59niix-1226099792611)

THE Gillard government is under mounting pressure to process 521 asylum-seekers currently in limbo on Christmas Island, with Malaysia refusing to accept them under its deal with Australia to be signed on Monday.

Sources familiar with the sector said Immigration Minister Chris Bowen would be soon be forced to overturn an earlier pledge that all arrivals after May 7 would be processed in a third country.

In my best Bertie Wooster accent: "Well I'll be jiggered!! Who'd have thunk it?"

Are we reaching the stage where, if an asylum seeker joins in any destructive behaviour while awaiting processing, it's an automatic "All bets are off; you will NOT be granted asylum?" rather than the current wuzzy "such behaviour MAY have a detrimental effect on your asylum claim"?

sisemen

22nd Jul 2011, 07:12

Second time he's been under the knife in a little over 12 months

It's just a pity that he had 4 knives in the back. If he'd stayed on then he would have had 12,000,000 in the front, courtesy of a grateful nation, and then we wouldn't have been witnessing this current dysfunctional mess.

It would also have helped Krudd get over the feeling that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

sisemen

24th Jul 2011, 06:43

So, Juliar's seat is looking very risky. Shouldn't this say something to her, her government and her sycophantic acolytes??

MTOW

24th Jul 2011, 23:31

If we can believe the news reports, today Chris Bowen will sign the agreement with the Malaysians on the "4000 for (maybe) 800" exchange.

I wait with bated breath to learn the details of the small print and the (doubtless numerous and even more doubtless costly) hidden clauses that it will contain.

Already we know that Australia will be responsible for the health and education of 'the 800' for all the time they remain in Malaysia. Now we have learned that they, ('the 800'), apart from carrying a special ID card that will excuse them beatings with the rotan, unlike any other refugees staying in Malaysia, they will be allowed to work.

I wonder if that translates into: "they will receive Australian CentreLink benefits while they remain in Malaysia if they are "unable" to work"?

And who, I wonder will house and feed 'the 800' for all the time they remain in Malaysia "at the back of the long queue"? (Why do I feel I already know the answer to this question?)

Given that we know that Australia will have no input into the 4000 genuine refugees we will take in lieu of 'the 800' (who many would say are NOT genuine refugees), am I the only one who feels a little apprehensive about just who these 4000 refugees will be, as in age, state of health and character? (I mean SURELY the Malaysians would not use this '4000 for (maybe) 800' exchange to clear their decks of troublemakers and people with health problems. Surely not.)

4000 people - that's 10, possibly 11 747 loads, almost certainly Malaysian Airlines charters (which will go back empty). Who, I wonder, will be paying for those charters? (Why do I feel I already know the answer to this question too?)

It all remains to be seen as the Devil shows himself, bit by bit over the next months or even years, in the details. I for one believe that Australians will find some very nasty and costly surprises in them.

Given this sorry excuse for a government's track record, perhaps 'surprises' isn't quite the right word.

Frank Arouet

25th Jul 2011, 00:44

We pessamists are never disappointed.:(

I guess if you could imagine any good thing with this deal it could be that we get 4000 Buddhists in exchange for 800 Muslims, but even that's stretching it a bit.

Getting back to the thread topic, carbon tax/ aviation, are we the highest aviation "per capita" carbon polluters in the world? or are we the lowest aviation per square kilometer carbon polluters in the world? or can we justify the tax with just hours flown vs avgas sales?

Just wondering.:suspect:

Towering Q

25th Jul 2011, 04:36

At last!!! Somebody has managed to swing this back to aviation....sort of.

Andu

25th Jul 2011, 07:41

I've just seen Juliar Gillard announce the Malaysian deal (and the [yet another] flip that, contrary to Chris Bowen's assurances, the 560+ asylum seekers who have arrived at Christmas Island since the Malaysian deal was prematurely announced will be processed in Australia).

What immediately came to my mind was that the special conditions the 800 returned to Malaysia will enjoy - (to quote Juliar Gillard, "they will be legal immigrants rather than illegal immigrants"), and with the Australian taxpayer footing all the (I'd be guessing considerable) bills for their welfare, getting to be one of the 800 will be quite attractive to some.

Andu

25th Jul 2011, 08:24

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/07/25/1226101/425132-malaysia-agreement.pdf

Take a look at the list of costs that Australia - that's YOU - will cover.

Ouch!

The Malaysians will milk this for all they can, and for years to come.

sisemen

25th Jul 2011, 09:14

The Danegeld (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)eɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɡ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɛ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English);[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld#cite_note-pronunciation-0) "Danish tax", literally "Dane's gold") was a tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax) raised to pay tribute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute) to the Viking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking) raiders to save a land from being ravaged. It was called the geld or gafol in eleventh-century sources;[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld#cite_note-1) the term Danegeld did not appear until the early twelfth century.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld#cite_note-2) It was characteristic of royal policy in both England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) and Francia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia) during the ninth through eleventh centuries, collected both as tributary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute), to buy off the attackers, and as stipendiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend), to pay the defensive forces.

What goes around.....

sisemen

26th Jul 2011, 02:06

http://au.f1124.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f124863%5fAHUaiWIAAGhTTi4ZlgUC6UeYBTs&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1

.................................

Pinky the pilot

26th Jul 2011, 04:30

Heard on the radio yesterday that according to a poll taken a few days ago that 'support for the carbon tax has increased by six percent and support for the coalition has dropped by six percent.'

Wonder where this 'poll' was taken? And by whom?:hmm:

Anyone else wonder if the small dummy spit by Greg Combet at a recent press conference means that the stress of promoting the tax is getting to be a bit much?

Saltie

26th Jul 2011, 04:58

Seems to me that Chris 'n Jools have just created a whole new category of boat people.

How?

The people smugglers agree to 'suffer' a short-term loss by approaching 800 of the 90,000 refugees sitting in misery in Malaysia and ask them if they'd like to take a two way journey - by boat to Christmas Island (for a very reasonable price), with a guaranteed return flight to Malaysia within 72 hours...

But wait! On return to Malaysia, you'll no longer be a put upon stateless person. You'll have a protection ID, be able to work, have free eduction and medical, a free trip home if you ever tire of the gravy train, all thanks to the Australian taxpayer...

...and it's back to business as usual for the people smugglers.

Entreprenurial Malaysian doctors will be finding any number of medical problems that these 800 returnees will simply have to have treated... at Australian taxpayers' expense, while all those poor children not allowed to go to public schools in Malaysia will probably end up at one of International Schools.

ca'ching!!! Terra makasi, Juliar.

Fubaar

26th Jul 2011, 06:41

Saltie missed the most obvious tweak the people smugglers will use to fine tune any such scheme. The people smugglers will approach refugees already in Malaysia to send (or take, but preferably send unaccompanied) as many of their very young children as possible to make up the 800.

For a reasonable price, (and one that the people smugglers will still make a profit on, say under $1000 a head), a stateless refugee gets his child (or children) free medical care and an education and the right to work after they've been educated - all thanks to the Australian taxpayer. Using very young kids, they could squeeze many more on the boats.

Think this won't happen? And think there aren't people in the refugee camps desperate enough to risk their children's lives on something like this?

Betcha it does and betcha there are.

Wiley

26th Jul 2011, 07:31

Whatever your politics, this is funny. I wonder if the audio is available?

If the ABC was Relevant (Part 44)

(a John Clarke, Bryan Dawes skit) - (The Customer)
[Scene: A car yard. BRYAN is perusing the stock.
He is approached by JOHN]
John: Morning! Looking for a new car?
Bryan: Nope. Prime Minister, actually.
John: You’re the third one this morning. Anything in mind?
Bryan: You know....... nothing fancy, reliable, economical family model. Something to get the country from A to B.
John: You mean like a Howard?
Bryan: Yeah....a little Johnny. Nothing flash, does the job. Low maintenance, economical, sensible. Runs for years, no troubles.
John: So.... you used to have one?
Bryan: Yeah. About 10 years. Great little model – don’t know why I got rid of him --biggest mistake I’ve ever made…
John: What happened?
Bryan: Traded him in for a Kevin 07.
John: Big mistake…
Bryan: Lot of people bought it. Good political mileage.
John: How was the Kevin 07?
Bryan: Came with a $900 factory rebate – that was good.
John: Anything else?
Bryan: Not much. Sounded nice but nothing under the bonnet. It was a lemon.
John: Didn’t stick around for long did it?
Bryan: Nah – had a factory recall. Shipped overseas and was never seen again.
John: What was the problem?
Bryan: Lots. But the final straw was the navigation system. Plug it in and it automatically loses its own way.
John: Whatcha got now?
Bryan: It’s a Gillard-Brown.
John: The hybrid?
Bryan: Yeah. The Eco-drive system – not a good idea. An engine that can’t deliver hooked up to a transmission stuck in permanent reverse…
John: Green paintwork with a red interior. And steering that always lurches to the left for no apparent reason – that’s the one?
Bryan: The Fustercluck model.
John: The only one they made, Bryan. Not the vehicle of choice for the road to recovery – but did they finish up fixing the navigation system?
Bryan: Made it worse. Turn it on and it does a press release, heads off in all directions and goes nowhere.
John: So that’s why you’re here?
Bryan: That’s right. I’m stuck with a government that's wasteful, expensive, ineffective and past its use by date. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the “Cash for Clunkers” scheme?
John: Join the queue brother.

Andu

26th Jul 2011, 23:17

What's the bet that if any adult sent to Malaysia ("to the back of the very long queue") has any children there, (either before or after he or she is sent there), those children will also not be eligible for Malaysian government schooling or medical care?

Therefore, one can only wonder who will pick up the tab for the education and medical care for what can sometimes be very big families? "The 800" could quite easily become "the 8000".

All aboard the gravy train!

To get back at least towards an aviation theme, I can't begin to imagine how they'll handle an A320 load of unwilling asylum seekers. Unless they heavily sedate them, (imagine the outcry from the huggy fluffs if they did that!!), they'll need four security people per 'refugee'.

It's not a situation I'd like to be a part of as the operating crew. I've had experience with just one unwilling deportee and seen first hand the mayhem that can bring on.

konstantin

27th Jul 2011, 14:17

Wiley

Given the seeming orientation of a certain broadcaster I think you may be waiting a looooong time for the audio.
This "transcript" is from a whole series of Clarke/Dawe fictional exchanges, penned by a poster, name of "Speedy" on Joanne Nova`s website.
He punches one out every couple of weeks, some are real ROFLMAO material indeed!
Unfortunately, if John and Bryan ever actually used any of his stuff there would be the predictable outcry from the expected quarter - media "balance" being a hot topic at the moment, and all that... ;)

Interesting though - this is the third totally unrelated internet source I have sighted that piece on in the last couple of days, maybe his work is starting to get around...? :)

Andu

29th Jul 2011, 11:33

From the Tim Blair blog today:

Refugees in Malaysia are threatening to pay people smugglers to take them to Australia, saying they’ll be treated better when they’re sent back under the asylum seeker swap deal.

Human-rights organisations have criticised the deal, saying it could actually act as a pull factor for boat people and creates a two-tier refugee system.Who'd have predicted that? (See Saltie's post above.)

Malaysia refugees threaten to pay people smugglers to take them to Australia | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/malaysia-refugees-threaten-to-pay-people-smugglers-to-take-them-to-australia/story-e6frfku0-1226103668829)

Worrals in the wilds

29th Jul 2011, 21:23

"And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: 'A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.'"
Kipling's The Naulahka, shamelessly pinched from a recent post by Sunfish.

Guess Jools and Co haven't read their Kipling either. We'll add it to the list so far; Machiavelli's The Prince, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Suetonious' Twelve Ceasars and Sagan's Nuclear Winter. A little light reading while resting her shoe leather may prove useful...:hmm:

Of course they'd probably scoff at such old fashioned esoteric stuff. After all, they're the 'working man' party :yuk:(which I thought was an extinct expression until hearing the ever-trendy 7PM Project poppets using it repeatedly in the Tony Abbot episode. It seems that women don't 'work' at channel 10).

Given that a large percentage of working men, women, dogs and even some of the nation's more complex computer systems have written the current government off as a dud they'd do well to remember the advice from yet another philosopher;
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
George Santayana

Wiley

30th Jul 2011, 00:05

Some bad news for some in this morning's 'Weekend Australian'.

PM's ghost has come back to haunt | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/pms-ghost-has-come-back-to-haunt/story-e6frgd0x-1226103638682)

Labor's partner in this crusade, the Greens, have argued at length for an end to mining coal - not only for domestic use, but also for export.

A recent analysis by RMIT economists Sinclair Davidson and Ashton De Silva of Greens' policies towards the coal industry shows that if implemented, 200,000 jobs would be lost and $29 billion would be taken out of the economy.If that ever came to pass, how many aviation jobs would go as well?

Wireless challenge to 'future-proof' NBN | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wireless-challenge-to-future-proof-nbn/story-fn59niix-1226104623595)

A TECHNOLOGY guru who has been described as the Thomas Edison of Silicon Valley claims to have developed a new wireless technology that could one day rival the download speeds on the National Broadband Network.

The new technology, called DIDO, allows internet users to access download speeds up to 1000 times faster than possible on conventional wireless networks, without any fall in speed as more users get on to the network.

I have admit that I said at the time the NBN was announced that something like this would almost certainly come along, quite probably before the NBN cables had been all laid.

It's my cause and I'll walk if I'm unhappy: Rob Oakeshott | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-my-cause-and-ill-walk-if-im-unhappy-rob-oakeshott/story-fn59niix-1226104584858)

JULIA Gillard's minority government has been put on notice it will need to start delivering on tax reform by the May budget or risk losing the support of key independent Rob Oakeshott.

It will be interesting to see how much coverage any of these stories get on the ABC.

CoodaShooda

30th Jul 2011, 05:13

Has anyone else tried to step back and attempted to make sense of the totality of Kevin/Juliar's reforms and where they are taking us?

IR laws that work against the employer.

Tax reforms that work against the high achievers and business.

Knee jerk responses , sorry policy decisions, that have gutted previously viable industries.

Significant increases in public sector manning and commensurate overbearing regulatory powers.

International agreements that commit us to significant offshore payments.

Massive borrowings (on per capita basis)

Control of the internet (will Conroy apply his filter to the NBN?)

Continuous and growing attempts to stifle dissenting views in the media (including the Cane Toad Wheel? :E)

I'd love to know what the real Julia's vision of Australia into the future is. I strongly suspect it ain't one I share.