So it appears Malcolm Turnbull has shot himself in the foor far too many times now, this appears to be the final one.

The last good man in politics actually interested in Australia's future, Tony Abbott, had put his job on the line to save australia from the ETS (extra tax system).

Read more about it here:

news dot com dot au

i reckon turnbull is pushing too hard for the libs/nats to be uniformly pro-ETS, it's never gonna happen that they get the entire coalition on board, the nats and the odd lib are too far to the right.

i think turnbull is underestimating the apathy/scepticism towards the ETS and climate change in general out there because the debate is dominated by vocal minorities.

either way, turnbull was never going to be the next lib pm, sucks that abbott resigned though massive props for doing it. good to see pollies standing up for their convictions (unless it's a publicity stunt, though abbott never seemed the kind to be too into that). i didn't mind him even though he's religious (isn't he?).

time for joe hockey to take the lead imo, though rudd will still win the next election (very, very rare for g'ments in aus to not see 2 terms) so if i were hockey i'd be keen to let someone else take the job and watch them f*** up the next election then i'd put my hand up.

words and actions are two different things, for the fact that he's sticking by malcolm f***head turnbull surely shows he's no good

and you're 100% right taggs.
on the religion note, who the f*** cares? both howard and rudd are regular churchgoing christians, seems to make not a scrap of difference to politics imo

so if i were hockeyabbott i'd be keen to let someone elsehockey take the job and watch them f*** up the next election then i'd put my hand up.

fixed for you.

last edited by hardware at 09:53:08 27/Nov/09

last edited by hardware at 09:53:33 27/Nov/09

who knows what's going on behind the scenes. wouldn't be surprised if turnbull steps down and its hockey vs. abbott, which would boil down to the same fundamental problems --> how do the centrist libs get the hard right libs to do what they want re: ETS and vice versa.

Joe's just playing the waiting game. Keeping clear of the mudslinging so he doesn't damage his chances to run for leadership later.

yeah well i suppose thats true fade, i mean abbott has said on several occasions he's happy to play wingman to turnbull even though you could see him seething with rage at the bumbling chucklef*** that is turnbull

Turnbull's problem is he isnt ideologically aligned with the party he leads.

Yes. He's more labour than liberal really. We need an old-skool, right-as PM

like JWH.

It's true, turnbull wanted to get into politics for his own self-grandising self that we saw in the republican debates of the late 90s (a very labor idea). He wasn't particularly ideological so went with the liberals as he lives in safe lib seat and fit in with the lib voting demographic.

i don't think turnbull is particularly ideologically motivated, personally. i think that he thinks australia has jumped on the ETS/AGW bandwagon, and he's seen the success that populism has brought rudd and he wants his own share of the pie.

i think turnbull is plagued by his "smarter than thou" merchant banking attitude. he assumes others are much stupider than they actually are, both individually and collectively towards the australian public in general.

Yep. JWH will go down in history as the man who saved australia. The only people who didn't like him didn't have a clue about politics anyway.

i think turnbull is plagued by his "smarter than thou" merchant banking attitude. he assumes others are much stupider than they actually are, both individually and collectively towards the australian public in general.

Funny you say this, i'ev been saying the same thing for a while. While I'm sure he's an astute businessman, he's too easily influenced by public opinion to be a leading politician.

Politics is like in all types of human endeavour, those who try to react never move forward. Look at queensland after Beattie's neglect.

though rudd will still win the next election (very, very rare for g'ments in aus to not see 2 terms)

Rudd winning the next election will probably have less to do with Labor and more to do with the Liberal party annihilating themselves faster than protons in CERN's large hadron collider.

Apparently the Senate vote will be on Monday. Heard an LNP staffer on the bus on his mobile phone speaking with a Senator in Canberra. He was lobbying on behalf of a "friend in the mining industry" saying they were opposed to the ETS in its current form.

The chick sitting next to him on the bus asked him "f*** the friend in the mining industry, what about the constituents who voted your boss into parliament you corrupt f***" to the sound of applause from a packed bus.

what about the constituents who voted your boss into parliament you corrupt f***"

Oh, the irony. he's a senator, his constituents are the state of queensland. The same Queensland which will be irreversably damaged by the ETS.

Oh, the irony. he's a senator, his constituents are the state of queensland. The same Queensland which will be irreversably damaged by the ETS.

Are you saying that excuses lobbying on behalf of friends in industry?!

Apparently the Senate vote will be on Monday. Heard an LNP staffer on the bus on his mobile phone speaking with a Senator in Canberra. He was lobbying on behalf of a "friend in the mining industry" saying they were opposed to the ETS in its current form.

The chick sitting next to him on the bus asked him "f*** the friend in the mining industry, what about the constituents who voted your boss into parliament you corrupt f***" to the sound of applause from a packed bus.

hahahahahah

what fade said.

Are you saying that excuses lobbying on behalf of friends in industry?!

If you don't want industry to lobby, you must also be against involvement of unions, enviro groups, community action groups et al in influencing/lobbying/supporting etc.

Turnbull has to be pro ETS because his seat is very green tinged and at the election the greens and labor are really heaping the preasure on him. He also knows he can't be prime minister (his obvious goal) if he isn't in parliment.

With the number of sharks circling in the water Turnbull will be lucky to survive to the end of next week let alone to the next election.

Hahaha if coalition ends up with Joe Hockey they'll have to enjoy there time in opposition, he seems like a nice enough guy but in no way displays any leadership material. Reminds me of a watered down Beazley.

With Joe Hockey as the opposition leader, Kochie and Mel need to get him and Rudd back on the show regularly.

Malcolm has sold out the grass-roots of the party who are anti-ETS. He needs to remember that without the party he would not be in the seat of Wentworth.

His party room was anti-ETS and he fudged the stats, then when fronted at the press conference he said "I made the call."

I have watched his press conferences over the last 2 days he is basically engaging in psychopathic bullying behaviour. If a boss conducted themselves in the workplace that way they would prosecuted by WorkCover.

He needs to listen to his backbench and formulate his policies accordingly. I didn't mind Malcolm but he is now showing his true colours under stress. And that doesn't make for a good leader.

You should have heard 4BC this morning, the listeners are seething. All Malcolm had to do was maintain the line that this matter should wait until next March. Instead he was so concerned about the electoral risk of a double dissolution that he opted to get into bed with the ALP. So the Liberal leadership caved and so the did the ALP leadership in terms of watering down their draft legislation.

Both leaderships have proven themselves to be spineless. The Australian public is looking for a leader with ticker who can make the tough decisions. Kevin Rudd can't do it and neither can Malcolm Turnbull. They both get an F.

last edited by infi at 11:26:22 27/Nov/09

He needs to listen to his backbench and formulate his policies accordingly.

Would be a win for politics if this was the case for both leaders.

The Australian public is looking for a leader with ticker who can make the tough decisions.

The Australian public has shown time and time again that all they respond to is reactive policy based on flavour of the month topics.

Are you saying that excuses lobbying on behalf of friends in industry?!

If you don't want industry to lobby, you must also be against involvement of unions, enviro groups, community action groups et al in influencing/lobbying/supporting etc.

thinking about it, I'm pretty much against all those things as well... so yep

turnbull was never gonna win anything, he was unpopular with the people and probably his own party before ETS came on the radar.

im thinking big joe mite have a shot, where does he stand on ETS anyway?

i guess hes for it considering he hasnt resigned yet.

thinking about it, I'm pretty much against all those things as well... so yep

against freedom of association... interesting.

tony abbott is the best chance for the liberals. he is a true liberal, through and through. he served the liberal party loyally for decades and has the party's interest foremost at heart.

poor old tony has copped a beating by the media because of some of his religious views but if he is to become leader he has to realise that he cannot impose his personal moral views on a secular party and a secular government.

tony is no dummy but understandably he has been conflicted over the past couple of weeks between his undying loyalty to the party and it's leader, and his instinct that Turnbull is destroying that party. This conflict is going to the core of the party's fabric and Turnbull is solely to blame with his crash or crash through mentality.

Take a leaf out of JWH's book. When in opposition you court everyone, when you're PM THEN you call the shots.


last edited by infi at 11:38:33 27/Nov/09

im thinking big joe mite have a shot, where does he stand on ETS anyway?

i guess hes for it considering he hasnt resigned yet

Joe's keepign his cards close ot his chest and will be in a position to come out clean when this is all over.

sunrise joe is a smart operator.

against freedom of association... interesting.

What's freedom of association? if you mean as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association then no, that's not what I'm talking about at all

What's freedom of association? if you mean as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association then no, that's not what I'm talking about at all

First line -

... to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests

I would submit those aforesaid lobbying groups would fit quite nicely in that definition.

so you are in favour of freedom of association, but just don't want those groups to actually do anything in their interest. doesn't that sort of render them useless?

imo everyone should lobby their asses off and may the best man win.

My ideal outcome of all this s***.

(not going to happen)

Turnbull steps down, Hockey replaces him.

Libs do not support ETS, Rudd calls double disolution.

Libs/Hockey win election, Rudd is laughed out of Canberra.

Awesome.

^^You're living in a fantasy land

imo everyone should lobby their asses off and may the best man win.

I think that statement should extend beyond lobbying, to all forms of human endeavour.

imo everyone should lobby their asses off and may the best man win.

Definitely, if the lobbying process has full transparency.

so you are in favour of freedom of association, but just don't want those groups to actually do anything in their interest. doesn't that sort of render them useless?

imo everyone should lobby their asses off and may the best man win.

I see a massively huge difference between groups like that existing, and government policy changing because of the lobbying efforts of groups like that. This is what happens in the US all the time and it's why we are in retarded situations like we are with copyright laws, ACTA, etc - because of the lobbying of commercial interest groups, who have all the money in the world to get the laws changed in their favour.

I don't know why the f***ing f*** f*** you'd think I'd be against groups like that existing. They can still clearly affect policy by lobbying the citizens who do the voting that vote in the politicians, which seems like a much better way to run a democracy. Except it doesn't account for the fact that a) people are lazy and as imitation pointed out have an attention span roughly equivalent to a gnat and b) the existing system we have is unlikely to change because it's in the favour of people with money!@#

Libs/Hockey win election, Rudd is laughed out of Canberra.

Anything that gets this economic vandal out of power.

ENOUGH WITH THE BUILDING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS CLOSING DOWN PLEASE.

imo everyone should lobby their asses off and may the best man win.

as much as i'm averse to any kind of government intervention, i wouldn't be ok with leaving a lobbying industry to be unregulated.

i'd hate to see our system end up like america's with big business and vocal minorities dominating the political discourse.

Some more -

I would submit those aforesaid lobbying groups would fit quite nicely in that definition.

... where that definition is "... to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests"

The problem is commercial-based lobby groups ARE NOT defending common interests. They are out there lobbying for one thing - money. This is clearly the case in the US with things like ACTA and the insane copyright law extensions that got passed because of Disney back in the day (death of author + 72 years are you KIDDING ME).

If there was a way the lobbying process could be made completely transparent, and there was actual, serious, jail-time accountability in place for people on both sides that abuse the process, then I'd be all for it.

trog: surely you realise that the average punter does not jack know s*** about about intricate policy areas and that is why they entrust it to the public service and politicians. lobby groups who do know a lot about those intricate policy areas can actually assist. and it is a productive process to have a battle of policy ideas from competing lobby groups at the highest levels to determine the best policy.

what is not in the nation's interest is this cash for access mentality that has been developing for fundraising purposes as it corrupts the process (not so much federally but definitely in the state governments, I mean Qld is a joke in this respect as is NSW). government should be meeting with lobby groups to hear their policy ideas.

The problem is commercial-based lobby groups ARE NOT defending common interests. They are out there lobbying for one thing - money.

Agreed. This isn't limited to commercial based groups though ie: unions. All interest groups protect their own interest, and in that, they all injure or hinder the opposing viewpoint.


First sentence of the wikipedia link you provided.

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1]

what is not in the nation's interest is this cash for access mentality that has been developing for fundraising purposes as it corrupts the process (not so much federally but definitely in the state governments, I mean Qld is a joke in this respect as is NSW). government should be meeting with lobby groups to hear their policy ideas.

You'd be happy with Bligh's Integrity Bill which aims to better regulate lobbyists and the lobbying process.

You should have heard 4BC this morning, the listeners are seething.

Wait right wing people voicing their opinions as fact on a radio talk back ... that never happens.

Wait right wing people voicing their opinions as fact on a radio talk back ... that never happens.

Yes, thankfully that hasn't been outlawed by an anti-terror law yet. I am sure it would have been the same on Madonna King which I normally listen to but they were broadcasting the damn test match.

Can't they just put it on from 11am?

hankfully that hasn't been outlawed by an anti-terror law yet.

I hope you realise the irony of your statement and the fact that it was your beloved John that made them so dangerously powerful.

i didn't want them.

libs are a lost cause

I'm sure it's totally his convictions. Probably nothing to do with a power play coming in the next few days/weeks. Did you see the huge smile on his face when he said "I'm not sure what will happen in the next few days". Creating more turmoil isn't a good thing for a party.

Maybe he was just pissed he wasn't able to steal any more printers/toners/other office supplies from the locals to stockpile haha.

libs are a lost cause

All we need to do is hook up a electric turbine up to Robert Menzies grave and with all the cheap clean power harnessed it would make the ETS legislation redundant.

Something I learned the other day - ALP parliamentarians are not permitted to vote against the party (AKA 'cross the floor'), or they are expelled from the party.

Does that creep anyone else out?

Something I learned the other day - ALP parliamentarians are not permitted to vote against the party (AKA 'cross the floor'), or they are expelled from the party.

Does that creep anyone else out?

They can for conscience votes, and no not at all, the ALP debates its policy direction internally.

the ALP debates its policy direction internally

See that also f***s with my head. Open and transparent government anyone?

Huh? Anyone can go to an ALP branch meeting and a state conference and even the national one if you so please.

All Malcolm had to do was maintain the line that this matter should wait until next March

All that will do is keep him treading water for a few months. We all know the liberal backbench clowns are not going to suddenly accept ETS in March, which will just lead to Liberals getting smashed at the next election given the concern about global warming in the general populace.

Malcolm may have gone about it all wrong (or not), but I think he's right to try and force his party down the road of ETS. The alternative is for the party to move into complete irrelevancy.

They can for conscience votes, and no not at all, the ALP debates its policy direction internally.

So, for example, the ALP resolves a policy that your constituents almost unilaterally oppose. Are you saying that the MP shouldnt vote for his consitutions in Parliament?

Open and transparent government doesn't mean that everyone gets to go though Kevin Rudd's email inbox.

There's nothing wrong with internal policy debates as long as when the final policy is announced the party doesn't do a 180deg back flip after they're elected on that policy.

Dazhel - way to misunderstand responsible government.

They can for conscience votes, and no not at all, the ALP debates its policy direction internally.

So, for example, the ALP resolves a policy that your constituents almost unilaterally oppose. Are you saying that the MP shouldnt vote for his consitutions in Parliament?

Greatest good for the greatest number, the ALP is a democratic socialist party...it's the second part of its national constitution...

So, for example, the ALP resolves a policy that your constituents almost unilaterally oppose. Are you saying that the MP shouldnt vote for his consitutions in Parliament?

That's the way it's supposed to work. The way it works in reality would probably be one of the following:
1) the MP doesn't tow the party line and gets sacked, possibly becoming an independent candidate
2) the MP tows the party line and gets voted out at the next election
3) the Sheeple are so distracted by shiny things that they forget all about the issue by the next election anyway

Something I learned the other day - ALP parliamentarians are not permitted to vote against the party (AKA 'cross the floor'), or they are expelled from the party.

Note of course that party expulsion does not mean you are removed from parliament.

If you're the sitting member and your party boots you out because you crossed the floor to support your constituents, that party is going to have a real tough sell to those constituents at the next election.

I think being a member of parliament is really the ultimate in compromises - if everyone was just "I will only vote for things that are fantastic for my people" then not much would get done. Representing your constituents is important, but you also need to look at Australia as a whole.

ALP is a democratic socialist party...

Thanks, imitation for proving my point. Responsible government you are elected for a constituency, not for a party. Therefore, your views are those of your electors, not that of the partyroom.


last edited by fade at 13:53:08 27/Nov/09

Huh? Anyone can go to an ALP branch meeting and a state conference and even the national one if you so please.

the grass roots rank and file members only make up 49% of the ALP's delegates to conference. So the ALP is owned and operated by the union movement.

An elected ALP member must obey the Caucus, and the unions control the state conferences which elect the key office holders. It's the ultimate Groupthink.

I think being a member of parliament is really the ultimate in compromises - if everyone was just "I will only vote for things that are fantastic for my people" then not much would get done. Representing your constituents is important, but you also need to look at Australia as a whole.

But if you are a member of the ALP you are not permitted to represent your constituents where at counts, you may only tow the party line or be expelled from the party. Where's the compromise here really?

Also, conscience votes appear to be so rare as to be almost irrelevant in this discussion arc.

Do people vote a party in for what they represent or to represent them?

Do people vote a party in for what they represent or to represent them?

Is that statement really an XOR?

Voters are voting for a party's policies.

Voters are voting for a party's policies.

Or in some cases, a lack thereof.

Why doesn't someone just start a new political party with policies and members that people actually like? Why do people interested in getting into politics immediately decide they will be asshats to half the country? it's stupid, their stupid, and people who support either liberal or labor are also stupid.

People want to have their cake and eat it too as the saying goes...and herein lies the problem

Voters are voting for a party's policies.

i voted for a man

Which one spook - rudd or gillard?

Agreed. This isn't limited to commercial based groups though ie: unions. All interest groups protect their own interest, and in that, they all injure or hinder the opposing viewpoint.

I hate unions too!

trog: surely you realise that the average punter does not jack know s*** about about intricate policy areas and that is why they entrust it to the public service and politicians.

oh yeh I know all about the average punter not knowing things.. but that is just further evidence about why lobby groups should focus on people, surely?

lobby groups who do know a lot about those intricate policy areas can actually assist. and it is a productive process to have a battle of policy ideas from competing lobby groups at the highest levels to determine the best policy.

That just sounds scary, because it turns the democratic process into a situation where whoever has the most funds can lobby hardest

Which one spook - rudd or gillard?

rofl fade. rudd is not a man. he is a Ruddbot.

That just sounds scary, because it turns the democratic process into a situation where whoever has the most funds can lobby hardest

not quite, because as long as there are two competing sides to an argument that care, they will both pursue and fund their argument to the best of their ability.

wouldn't you say big business has more funds than the green movement, yet somehow the green movement has achieved acceptance of its massive wealth distribution proposals in public psyche.

That just sounds scary, because it turns the democratic process into a situation where whoever has the most funds can lobby hardest

If there is hope, it lies in the proles.

the grass roots rank and file members only make up 49% of the ALP's delegates to conference. So the ALP is owned and operated by the union movement.

An elected ALP member must obey the Caucus, and the unions control the state conferences which elect the key office holders. It's the ultimate Groupthink.

Ahhhahhahahahaha. Tell that to the Unions who scream and bitch every time Labor does something they don't like.

I can also make a statement like yours :

49% of McDonalds customers are Australians, therefore the majority of McDonalds customers are swamp monsters from planet zergzog.

Edit:

But if you are a member of the ALP you are not permitted to represent your constituents where at counts, you may only tow the party line or be expelled from the party. Where's the compromise here really?

You're making it sound like one higher up tells everyone how to vote, as it's already been explained here that's just not true. Also, wasn't this thread made because one Liberal member felt he needed to resign his bench (if we believe that's the actual reason, I'm calling power play in a few days/weeks) because his vote didn't matter?

last edited by Syco at 15:12:31 27/Nov/09

WTF are you talking about? Mark Latham tried to increase the rank and file representation in the ALP back in 2006 from memory and it was rejected.

The unions run the ALP organisation. Now the organisation cannot force the political members to do anything but they sure as hell can get square come preselection time.

You can keep up to speed on all that sort of news at vexnews.

hahahaha those swamp monsters mostly get mcflurrys though so they don't attribute to overall maccas profit.

Except syco, what infi said is fact. This is a basic fact of politics. If you didn't know this, go hang out with therm and you two can debate Buffett's influence.

Unions will complain from time to time, but know that they can heavily influence ALP conferences in their various factional voting blocs.

Also, wasn't this thread made because one Liberal member felt he needed to resign his bench (if we believe that's the actual reason, I'm calling power play in a few days/weeks) because his vote didn't matter?

No because they plan to cross the floor and vote against their leader's policy. And they are not going to be expelled either for doing it.

Do you get it yet?

So they can't hold a bench position and vote against the leader?

It's all just bulls*** to take the lead and further someones career at the detriment of the party.

or further the actual views of the liberal party?

But if they're all so free to vote in whichever way they chose why resign positions and whatnot? Surely just voting against something they or their electorate feel strongly against sends enough of a message?

Syco - Cabinet (or the Shadow for the liberals) exercise roles in the executive and the legislature. It is when their stance in the legislature is at odds with the cabinet's position, one should resign from cabinet.

edit: think of it like a team, cabinet is a team, the legislature are (at least theorically) individual representatives of their constitutents.



last edited by fade at 15:35:45 27/Nov/09

not quite, because as long as there are two competing sides to an argument that care, they will both pursue and fund their argument to the best of their ability.

Not sure if you typed that with a straight face. Explain to me how a group like the EFA can compete on fair ground with the record/movies industry on the subject of broken copyright laws?

as i said trog, how have the green movement outsmarted big business? how did the pensioners outsmart the treasury boffins and get their pension increase?

do you have a picture of erin brokovich (well julia roberts as erin brokovich) beside your bed?

syco: the government is represented by cabinet (the executive arm). cabinet makes laws by formulating policy, which is then passed by the legislature. cabinet is answerable to the legislature which is the house of reps and senate. so when nick minchin or tony abbott or whoever resigns from shadow cabinet (big whoop shadows don't even make law) what they are saying is they resigning from the inner position being responsible for a portfolio of policy, and "going to the backbench" i.e. just sitting as another member of parliament.

as i said trog, how have the green movement outsmarted big business? how did the pensioners outsmart the treasury boffins and get their pension increase?

oh yeh! I forgot the green movement only just started their lobbying yesterday.

how did the pensioners outsmart the treasury boffins and get their pension increase?

Because old people have unlimited time and there's no commercial entity lobbying against them

Because old people have unlimited time

I would have thought the reverse was true instead. :)

oh yeh! I forgot the green movement only just started their lobbying yesterday.

What alternative is it you are actually suggesting? it almost sounds to me like you would prefer some sort of legislatively-imposed leveling of the playing field between big business and the "underdogs".

How would we ever have David vs. Goliath stories again?

What alternative is it you are actually suggesting? it almost sounds to me like you would prefer some sort of legislatively-imposed leveling of the playing field between big business and the "underdogs".

How would we ever have David vs. Goliath stories again?

I wrote my suggestion above... I still think some form of commercially-driven lobbying is inevitable in any system - realistically, probably even necessary. But I'd rather have zero than have the system that they have in the US that drives their lawmaking process in the interests of big companies, especially when those laws are just inherited blindly by Australia

inherited blindly by Australia

You can't blame the US lobbiests for Australia nonchalence. But I agree with your sentiments.

You can't blame the US lobbiests for Australia nonchalence. But I agree with your sentiments.

I CAN AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO!@#@#!

blame the government for our retarded voters. the problem is they never get better at it.

What alternative is it you are actually suggesting? it almost sounds to me like you would prefer some sort of legislatively-imposed leveling of the playing field between big business and the "underdogs".

if you think there is a problem with lobbying the best way to fix it is to make the senate elected by sortition. this way there will be a house that is guaranteed to be representative of the electorate and isn't effected by electioneering. any kind of limiting on political funding or speech is open to such massive gaming that is likely to do more harm than good. however, i think it is very unlikely for a society to transition from elected representatives to representatives selected by sortition even for the house of review. i wonder why? :)

last edited by hast at 17:52:29 27/Nov/09

Yeh, cos I want a bunch of randoms in the Senate. Pass, I have no faith in the legislative acumen of the average Aussie.

So the whole concept of appointment through a competitive merit-based process - we just throw that out and go for the lottery method.

The Senate will end up as f***ed up as the jury system.

Hehe, legislative checks and balances provided by those not savvy enough to know how to get out of Senate duty. Awesome!

i think if we trust people to select their representatives and decide on someones guilt then we should be able to trust them to make decisions with 75 other people. also, if you pay people the same as what current senators get i doubt many people would refuse it. double average pay + status is pretty hard to refuse.

sortition has worked in the past. the house of lords was sortition by birth and wasn't a complete disaster :)

last edited by hast at 19:47:34 27/Nov/09

there is a move towards defendents being able to request judge only trials :)

i think if we trust people to select their representatives and decide on someones guilt then we should be able to trust them to make decisions with 75 other people

This is a massively flawed comparison.

Wow, totally expected to get ripped on and talked down to for my view on the current political environment but instead had a nice concise explanation. Someone hate on me or I'll feel welcome, quick go :D

I think that another issue related to the lobby process is that donations to political parties should be capped.

i'd vote for a king.

as i said trog, how have the green movement outsmarted big business? how did the pensioners outsmart the treasury boffins and get their pension increase?

Im pretty sure big business have had a few more wins along the way.

I think that another issue related to the lobby process is that donations to political parties should be capped.

For sure!

That just sounds scary, because it turns the democratic process into a situation where whoever has the most funds can lobby hardest


not quite, because as long as there are two competing sides to an argument that care, they will both pursue and fund their argument to the best of their ability.

Yeah... meaning the person with the most sufficient funds wins.

Egos, don't you just love em..

The whole problem with the Australian system is partisan voting.

Both liberal and Labor do it, and expell people for failing to do it (usually). The closest you get most of the time is people choosing not to make the call (a bell rings and you have to go in for the count where as most of the time the houses are pretty empty).


However once you do that you end up with lobby groups being able to buy individual votes of members. (ie. the US has this problem big time)

Each system/version of democracy comes with it's own flaws.


But this last little change in the liberal party is quite odd. Hockey being of Palestinian catholic decent and went to a Jesuit school. Tony Abbott at one point was studying to become a catholic priest. Not exactly the old WASP image.
It's actually a good thing hopefully the old grey haired brigade don't work it out.

soooo, has my buddy joe got the job yet?

i knew you'd be going for joe spook
cos he's the s*** one

well, im not really going for him.

hes just the liberals only chance of a competitve leader by the next election.

i want to see these 2 on sunrise as prime minister vs opposition leader

I want to see them in a ring.

reckon
wheres today on regular political guests who will one day be prime ministers?

f***ing nowhere!!!!!

I just want a leader who listens instead of tells how it's going to be.

I just want a leader who listens instead of tells how it's going to be.

I think they call them "followers"

Leaders should be listening to the mood of their constituents otherwise they quickly find their head on a pike. (Ah la Malcolm).

Isn't one of the criticisms of the Chairman (and the guy before him for that matter) that he is too influenced by polls?

I don't think you can accuse John Howard of being populist all the time (GST, Iraq, Guns Buyback, Workchoices) but he was when it suited him (Tampa, Childcare rebates, middle class welfare).

Malcolm is backing a policy that even a majority of his own party don't back. How can he go on the attack against Labor when he doesn't have the party backing his position? Malcolm has shown he really does belong in the ALP. As for Ian Macfarlane, I cannot believe he sold out his farming roots (he is ex-NFF). At least Barnaby and the Nats are keeping an eye out for the bush and they have played this whole game the best out of all parties in my opinion.

Just wait till the price of chardonnay (boxed wine for spook) and lattes go up. It will all seem a little more serious then.

Well apparently if Joe wins, they get a free vote on the ETS, so it might pass anyway. Meaning it's got squat to do with policy and more to do with them scurrying around trying to save their own skins come next election.

The Libs voting for the ETS would be suicide regardless. It's nothing but a s***ty tax. When the voters come to realise it, they might blame Kevin a bit, but the party that will really cop the flogging will be the party that let it through the senate. The ones that sold out. The Libs.

The ETS should be shot down in any form, the only tax that would work to reduce CO2 would be a flat tax, but this one is so heavily subsidised that its completely distorted any possible market forces. The people who end up facing the biggest costs from it will be consumers who have zero potential to change their habits significantly to avoid the tax.

That and the fact that grobal walming is complete bulls*** anyway.

lolol conscience vote for ETS, Hockey's first act as leader is to bitterly divide the party hahaha Liberals haven't got a chance, also I like that Rudd snuck through sending more troops to Afghanistan today so it'll hardly get any play on the news while they're all focused on the Libs.

Well apparently if Joe wins, they get a free vote on the ETS, so it might pass anyway.

word on the street is it will pass, so malcolm will lose his job for nothing.

Well that was unexpected.

Tony won.

Woot, no tax for us.

Wow

abbots the new leader

edit: f***, beaen

:D

Now which way are the rates going? My guess is up another 25 basis points.

you'd only get 1-1 odds on that bet imitation :)

Abbott, didn't see that coming. Labor is definetely in the next election.

awesome no silly green ruddy wank tax

Yesterday afternoon, Nick Minchin convened a meeting in Joe Hockey's office which was also attended by Tony Abbott, putative deputy candidate Peter Dutton and Opposition business manager Christopher Pyne.

The purpose, hilariously enough, was to try to establish an approach to the emissions trading legislation that everybody could live with.

In the face of Mr Hockey's insistence that the matter be a conscience vote, Mr Abbott eventually lost his temper.

"So," he summarised bitterly.

"Malcolm Turnbull's for the ETS. I'm against the ETS. And Joe - nobody knows what the f**k you stand for."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2757994.htm

Now where did I put my 1950's Calendar. I'll be needing it to keep up with the Federal Liberal Party.

Labor is definetely in the next election.

I think that was on the cards anyway... If anything, I'd say Abbot gives the libs more chance of winning than Turbull had...

I'm suprised Hockey didn't get through the first round!

Will the libs ever come into this century..

The whole issue is that Minchin is a f***head, and doesn't believe in climate change!

I hope he gets a different portfolio, I think it’s pretty much the consensus that he is the worst shadow communications minister ever.


"Oh, Conroy says A, I'll AUTOMATICALLY say B without having any idea what I'm talking about - sweet!"

Dammit.. looks like I'll be voting for the greens or something come next election, can't believe Abbot got elected.

The other question is, did Hockey deliberately offer up a conscious vote with the intention of not going leader because he didn't want to face off with Rudd in the next election, but rather wait until the election following and go for leadership and potential Prime Minister then?

Or does failing to win the leadership now put him in poor odds of ever leading?

I guess that is up to how Tony performs.

"Oh, Conroy says A, I'll AUTOMATICALLY say B without having any idea what I'm talking about - sweet!"

thats actually a pretty good strategy. Conroy's come up with pretty much 100% stupid ideas thus far.

Labor is definetely in the next election.

Weirdly, I feel like I am now even more likely to vote Liberal, because it shows on important topics they're not just going to tow some stupid party line.

^ No, they'd rather stick their head in the sand and knife anyone in the back if they don't agree with them. Peacock and Howard all over again. Stab, stab. Liberal party don't play TF2 do they?

^^ yeah I feel the same way. Ironically I cant stand Tony Abbott. But if it means saving the country from being Ruddomized, I'll vote for the c***(I cant believe I just said that)

last edited by sLaps_Forehead at 10:33:36 01/Dec/09

didn't i tell you mongie that abbott would win.

now he's a true liberal and will throw this stupid ETS out the back door *gestures like kevin rudd - thumb over shoulder* hahaha

last edited by infi at 10:45:24 01/Dec/09

Tony abbot,the biggest c*** in australia.

A conscience vote on a tax. Haha.

Joe needs some balls if he wants to lead imo.

nah, he's just not someone who'll stab another member in the back unlike abbott and the others. He's got a conscience.

nah, he's just not someone who'll stab another member in the back unlike abbott and the others. He's got a conscience.

I don't get why everyone is hating on Abbott... if I was in his electorate and I'd voted for Abbott on the grounds of his environmental policy, isn't this exactly the sort of thing I'd want him to be doing?

Weirdly, I feel like I am now even more likely to vote Liberal, because it shows on important topics they're not just going to tow some stupid party line.

Abbott was all for the ETS 6 months ago and has now changed his mind, he is towing the party line just the party line has changed..

Abbott was all for the ETS 6 months ago and has now changed his mind, he is towing the party line just the party line has changed..

yeah reflecting the mood of his backbench and the mood of Australia. GG

thats actually a pretty good strategy. Conroy's come up with pretty much 100% stupid ideas thus far.

Conroy is a f***head too, but Minchin is just ridiculous.


Abbot will be ok, I just worry he will let is religious beliefs influence his policies.

Yeah, trog. Why all the Abbott hate? I can't understand why some people agree with his policies but wouldn't vote for him.

Damo - the liberals are a conservative party. If you like progressive parties, look elsewhere.

TicMan - why do you have abbott so much? let me guess - RU486? If that's the case, that matter is resolved. Get over it and vote on the policies of today.

Mongie - Lots of people don't believe in climate change because, you know, there isn't conclusive evidence.

Yeah reflecting the mood of his backbench and the mood of Australia. GG

What you think is not the mood of Australia infi, nor can this mostly conservative forum be representative of the masses.

However the latest Neilsen poll is pretty comprehensive when it comes to this stuff.

Go Abbott Go!!!

john howard will be spinning in his grave at the mess his liberal party is in.

this mostly conservative forum

What?!

This is definitely not a conservative forum.

john howard will be spinning in his grave at the mess his liberal party is in.

As much as you hate him for delivering the most prosperous Australia in our history - he's not dead yet, Spook.

Weirdly, I feel like I am now even more likely to vote Liberal, because it shows on important topics they're not just going to tow some stupid party line.

That isn't how the Australian version of democracy works.
Unless everyone is conscience/electorate voting, one party conscience voting makes them a confusing thing to vote for.

ie. Do I vote liberal because I agree with major policy A, even tho my local member is going to cross the floor on that issue ? (and vice versa)

If however everyone was voting based on representing their electorate then that would be different and the party talks more of values.

I mean the Liberals have arch monarchists and staunch republicans, climate change deniers and prophets... It would be hard to say at the moment what they exactly stand for, other then sour grapes.

Hopefully Abbott will actually solidify what they stand for so people feel confident they know what they are voting for or against. And those Liberal party members that aren't of that view go there own way and perhaps form a new version of the liberal party that represents them (it's happened before on both sides of politics).

This is definitely not a conservative forum.

I'd disagree it's definitely right of center, perhaps conservative is going to far. Infi, casa, trog and the list goes on and on are conservative voters or party members. Heck infi is a walking billboard for the Liberal party and would never vote labor out of conscience(upbringing), yet he'd consider me a lefty loon bag and I am most definitely a swinging center voter.

ie. If you had polled this forum prior to the last election John Howard was getting back in, reality was quite different.

last edited by Obes at 11:07:56 01/Dec/09

yes john howard was responsible for the entire world economic boom that he happen to be pime minister for

As much as you hate him for delivering the most prosperous Australia in our history

that is just one of the reasons i hate him!

i dont like liars, people who lie about liking cricket, people who are completely unco and people who make me feel uncomfortable when i look at them

i dont think john howard would care so much... wasn't abbott one of his "students" or something.

Just wait until middle Australia learns the truth about Mr Rudd's Copenhagen plans to donate $7b per year to developing countries, and the $1100 increase per year in living costs this ETS will bring onto families.

Tony is putting on a great press conference right now. Bring on an election!

TicMan - why do you have abbott so much?

I've less hate on Abbott but more hate on the Liberal parties bickering and fighting. It's bad enough the party in QLD is a joke but at a federal level it's turning into the same circus. I've lost faith in the party being able to decide who the next Australian Idol should be let alone on issues affecting the country.

hah, an ETS is coming anyway.

This has just delayed it a few months so the Libs can figure out how to give even more assistance cash to big industry - meaning avg punter will wear an even higher proportion of the cost.

Eh its part of the Opposition thing. They need to go through this to get elected, but they'll still only get elected when the public is over Rudd and they look vaguelly credible at the same time.

Federal Labor was the same not so long ago (Mark Latham, lols). Its much easier to be united and have your s*** together when you are in power, nobody wants to rock the boat and wind up in Opposition.

Infi, casa, trog and the list goes on and on are conservative voters or party members

what makes me conservative? I would have said I'm liberal.... if I believed anything so foolish as someone's political views could be bipolar

I'm not conservative, I'm a libertarian.

hah, an ETS is coming anyway.

This has just delayed it a few months so the Libs can figure out how to give even more assistance cash to big industry - meaning avg punter will wear an even higher proportion of the cost.

the big polluters won't pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions so we won't get an ETS.

I'm not conservative, I'm a libertarian.

and THEN SOME!

I'd disagree it's definitely right of center, perhaps conservative is going to far. Infi, casa, trog and the list goes on and on are conservative voters or party members. Heck infi is a walking billboard for the Liberal party and would never vote labor out of conscience(upbringing), yet he'd consider me a lefty loon bag and I am most definitely a swinging center voter.

ie. If you had polled this forum prior to the last election John Howard was getting back in, reality was quite different.

I think people on here have neo-liberal conservative views not broadly liberal views.

what makes me conservative? I would have said I'm liberal....

http://goldenbeardrama.com/serendipity/uploads/LiberalVsConservative.jpg

who cares about that right or left bulls***.

All Rudd cares about is his retirement plan to run the U.N.

Asif you would commit Australia to an economy f***ing tax on carbon pollution when we produce less than 1 percent of global emissions. Meanwhile the Yanks, Wangs and Curries pump the s*** out like there is no tommorrow.

The Libs are right to delay this silly green ruddtax until the big polluters sign an agreement.

Yeah obes, because thats a totally neutral opinion.

no ticker

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/peter-costellos-to-blame-for-the-leadership-crisis-tearing-the-party-apart/story-e6frg6zo-1225805523074

curses, trolled by Obes yet again

Asif you would commit Australia to an economy f***ing tax on carbon pollution when we produce less than 1 percent of global emissions. Meanwhile the Yanks, Wangs and Curries pump the s*** out like there is no tommorrow.

yer its an insane bargaining position. if anyone should move first then it should be the largest countries in population because they have the most to gain.

the cost benefit for emission reduction for each country looks something like: b * 1/n - c

where b should be slightly larger than c (i actually think b < c)
where 1/n is close to the fraction of the worlds population that lives in that country

if you are a small country then going it alone imposes a large net cost on the population. for australia we get 0.3% of the benefit from our reduction in emissions while the rest of the world captures 99.7% of the benefit from our reduction.

if you are a large country then going it alone will still impose a net cost on the population but it won't be as absurdly large. for example china captures 20% of the benefit from its own reductions.

australia should be negotiating agreements where we will only reduce our emissions only if other major countries agree to reduce their emissions as well. you probably need agreement from countries that add up to 80% of all emissions. anything else is just a gift to the rest of the world.

last edited by hast at 12:15:19 01/Dec/09

^^I don't think this captures political leverage from acting early nor does it emphasise that we don't have an infinitely long amount of time to act. The longer to act there is an escalating cost in that failure. That really oversimplifies things be saying there is an equal benefit to each citizen of each country uniformly.

imi: its close enough for australia. i suspect the proportion benefits to australia from reducting its own emissions is somewhere between 0 and 3%. it doesn't really change the calculus for us.

I don't think this captures political leverage from acting early

there is no political leverage. other countries will just think they own your soul.

last edited by hast at 12:25:56 01/Dec/09

I don't think this captures political leverage from acting early nor does it emphasise that we don't have an infinitely long amount of time to act.

How long do we have to act? What are the consequences of inaction in what time frame? It all seems pretty blurry to me.

We didn't act much at all from the 90s until 2010 and global temperatures didn't rise. I fail to see the urgency, aside from the fact that the longer we wait the more ridiculous this WE MUST ACT NOW urgency looks in hindsight.

How was I dragged into this? f*** you Obes.

Anyway, since I could not be f***ed reading 178 posts I bid you my 2c:

The liberal party obviously forget that the people are the ones who vote them in, and the people prefer joe hockey over tony abbott, last I checked, abbott had the same opinion levels as that f*** wit turnbull who stupidly shot himself in the foot by trying to pretend people liked him.

Anyway, Abbott will not be our next prime minister, however I will never vote for kruddler as the labor party and everything they stand for can f***ing suck on my plums. You can blame it on my upbringing all you want, however the fact still remains that while a federally run liberal party is in power, our debt is f*** all, and when there is a labor party in power it looks a bit like this: 8====D

Some people might love the free handouts labor have forever given the Australian people, however it's us people who actually have jobs and our own money to spend who need to worry about paying off your s***ty f***ing debt.

Not to mention, another $1100pa coming out of my pocket. That is f***ed. They should make f***ing policy for their own voters (I know this is a state whinge, but its labor hate none the less). Or I could cry about it being coupled with the $700pa the ETS will be hammering my back pocket, all while taxes, rates and inflation increase to offset the f***ing debt. Rusty c*** bucket f***s.

last edited by casa at 12:34:54 01/Dec/09

last edited by casa at 12:35:56 01/Dec/09

I'm not a climate change skeptic, but I really don't see the need for urgency here. The consequences of gradual climate change are not nearly as disastrous to humans as many people make out (mainly politicians). Sure some sensitive species may have a hard time, but I think we can afford to take the time and make positive changes towards energy reform (ie. nuclear power), not some carbon tax which will do nothing and cost lots.

We didn't act much at all from the 90s until 2010 and global temperatures didn't rise.

Yeah, they did. The climate change debate is about whether humans are causing it, not whether temperatures are rising.

Casa, meh, give me some debt to work off over selling off assets every time the Libs get back in and leaving us with a****** amenities suppliers to deal with.

Edit:

Just wait until middle Australia learns the truth about Mr Rudd's Copenhagen plans to donate $7b per year to developing countries

Great! Australia's foreign aid is woefully low. I think most people who cared for more then just money would be happy with a raise in donations to help out developing countries.

last edited by Syco at 13:01:56 01/Dec/09

Casa, you talk s***. Same goes for nF(i).

Great! Australia's foreign aid is woefully low. I think most people who cared for more then just money would be happy with a raise in donations to help out developing countries.

They can donate it themselves directly then.

Sure some sensitive species may have a hard time, but I think we can afford to take the time and make positive changes towards energy reform (ie. nuclear power), not some carbon tax which will do nothing and cost lots.

You do realise man-made global warming isn't new, right? It was first theorised in the '50s, and scientific organisations have been backing the idea since the late '70s. The government is taxing carbon because industries have shown through 30 years of inaction that they're not going to change until it hurts their bottom line.

I think most people who cared for more then just money would be happy with a raise in donations to help out developing countries.

staunch conservatives care only for money.

Yeah, they did. The climate change debate is about whether humans are causing it, not whether temperatures are rising.

Not since the 90s it hasn't.

The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.

Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action on Climate - NYTimes.com - September 21, 2009

yeah we have a $50b deficit. let's make it $57b. no biggie - it's just numbers.

You do realise man-made global warming isn't new, right? It was first theorised in the '50s, and scientific organisations have been backing the idea since the late '70s. The government is taxing carbon because industries have shown through 30 years of inaction that they're not going to change until it hurts their bottom line.

Shhhh, you're supposed to say that man made climate change was invented in the last few years so people could make money off it!

Arguing that debt is always wrong or bad makes no sense, especially when so many people here have taken out loans for homes, businesses etc and would consider these to be investment loans.

Hogfather - Good to see you can't read past the second paragraph:

Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

But trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public — and to policy makers — can be frustrating, they say.

Not since the 90s it hasn't.

Hogfather did you even read that article.

But Dr. Latif, who gives about 200 talks to the public, business leaders and officials each year, said he had been met with confusion and even anger when he tried to describe this normal variation in climate while at the same time conveying the long-term threat of global warming.

Most climate scientists stand firm in their projections of centuries of rising seas and other disruptive effects of a warming planet if humans take no steps to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.

I saw my old man the other day. A reformed Labor voter. He was musing over how when he first moved to Brisbane we'd have a cyclone or two approaching Brisbane every year, all the gardens were always green etc etc but now Brisbane is turning into a baron looking hole with no interesting weather.

debt is fine when you are buying an appreciating asset, like a home or a business. incurring debt to then hand that money to another country, or person, is something only Labor would do.

^ you still don't think outside your little box do you infi.

i know handouts make everyone feel good, but i had other plans for the taxes they represent.

Surely everyone knows that the liberals are gonna get smashed at the next election, im not saying that as a kinda labor supporter (I actually voted for Pauline hanson in the last state election) but becuase with abbot as leader, probably even with hockey as leader, they could never win.

Personally I reckon someone that the public didnt know very well would have been the best choice, fresh start new guy could have probably come close to winning.

Also I would never vote for liberal now that they have a almost became a priest (thats what I read somewhere) guy leading. Yes kevin rudd and most potiticians go to church etc, but thats a long way from nearly becoming a priest.

I know tony abbots kind, you can tell just from interviews, he will always assume he knows best cause he has god on his side and is the type of person to come out with think of the children type policy's.

I guess it works out for infi cuase he can blame anything bad that happens on labor for a while to come.

And what box is that SFB? that fiscal responsbility box?

i see two good reasons for government debt:

1) to have taxpayers who are receiving the benefit paying the cost. ie: you build a bridge it makes sense to have it funded by debt because taxpayers will enjoy the capital cost over 30 years or so.

2) to fund something beneficial that would be impossible to fund through taxation. ie: you are at war and it is not possible to win the war by siezing all the production of the country.

going into debt to pay for handouts to current taxypayers doesn't fit 1) or 2).

I guess it works out for infi cuase he can blame anything bad that happens on labor for a while to come.

I wan enjoying it better when I was thanking The Man of Steel for everything good that was happening to the country.

Fiscal responsibility box doesn't always overlap with the socially responsible box I'll admit but are the numbers all that matters?

Hai guyz!

I heer that libralz suk and they dont gno wot there doin and thei cant even pik a noo leeda?!?!!?!

I wan enjoying it better when I was thanking The Man of Steel for everything good that was happening to the country.

You call john howard the "Man of Steel", u arent serious?

His record speaks for itself.

1) to have taxpayers who are receiving the benefit paying the cost. ie: you build a bridge it makes sense to have it funded by debt because taxpayers will enjoy the capital cost over 30 years or so.

2) to fund something beneficial that would be impossible to fund through taxation. ie: you are at war and it is not possible to win the war by siezing all the production of the country.

going into debt to pay for handouts to current taxypayers doesn't fit 1) or 2).

Didn't it help keep us out of recession and contribute to our dollar staying so high? That'd probably be a #1 and a #2, though #2's been well and truly done by the Yank Right it's working well for them I guess?

How long do we have to act? What are the consequences of inaction in what time frame? It all seems pretty blurry to me.

We didn't act much at all from the 90s until 2010 and global temperatures didn't rise. I fail to see the urgency, aside from the fact that the longer we wait the more ridiculous this WE MUST ACT NOW urgency looks in hindsight.

You can't just rate it on global temperatures rising, there are many different factors, complex science etc.

Anyways, it's better to have a healthy planet then pumping toxins into the atmosphere. Also producing sustainable energy is a huge benefit to mankind. Imagine what we could do with unlimited energy?

We should be researching/producing such technologies now for our general evolution. Fossil fuels are out dated and more so they are boring f***ing projects. We can do better...

it's better to have a healthy planet then pumping toxins into the atmosphere. Also producing sustainable energy is a huge benefit to mankind. Imagine what we could do with unlimited energy?

and the ETS will fix all those problems...

2) doesn't count for the Iraq war because the yanks could have funded it through taxation. when i say 'impossible' i mean 'economically impossible' not 'politically impossible'. a country produces $GDP in goods and these can be used/traded in order to fund a war + the subsistence of its citizens. you don't need to go into debt under 2) unless $GDP < $cost of war + $cost of subsistence. however, fighting wars may also come under 1).

Also producing sustainable energy is a huge benefit to mankind.

Is not! It will cost us money and all that's important is cashola. Screw the planet and screw the grandkids (that is, unless you want to talk about a left government borrowing that will mean my grandkids might be in debt because I'm totally all for looking after the grandkids then, because it was done by the left and I'm all right wing and stuff and blindly follow everything spewed fourth from the party wooo yay me seig heil).

it's better to have a healthy planet then pumping toxins into the atmosphere. Also producing sustainable energy is a huge benefit to mankind. Imagine what we could do with unlimited energy?


and the ETS will fix all those problems...

No, I am strongly anti ETS. The money will never make it to the researches of sustainable and renewable energy.

Also producing sustainable energy is a huge benefit to mankind.

Is not! It will cost us money and all that's important is cashola.

Screw the planet and screw the grandkids (that is, unless you want to talk about a left government borrowing that will mean my grandkids might be in debt because I'm totally all for looking after the grandkids then, because it was done by the left and I'm all right wing and stuff and blindly follow everything spewed fourth from the party wooo yay me seig heil).

Your whole post sounds like you are someone with not an inkling of understanding on the issue.

Is not! It will cost us money and all that's important is cashola.

Like it or not the way we think and produce energy is changing and it will be profitable.

Take what Abu Dhabi is doing http://www.masdar.ae/en/home/index.aspx

As the first major hydrocarbon-producing economy to take such a step Abu Dhabi has established its leadership position by launching the Masdar Initiative a global cooperative platform for the open engagement in the search for solutions to some of mankind's most pressing issues energy security climate change and the development of human expertise in...

Wake up and stop being such an uneducated peon.

last edited by dynamite at 14:15:41 01/Dec/09

Anyways, it's better to have a healthy planet then pumping toxins into the atmosphere. Also producing sustainable energy is a huge benefit to mankind. Imagine what we could do with unlimited energy?

We should be researching/producing such technologies now for our general evolution. Fossil fuels are out dated and more so they are boring f***ing projects. We can do better...

more crazy thinking from the environmental absolutionists. if i had an energy source that produced electricity at $1/MWh i would use it even if it would run out sometime in the future. cheap energy > sustainable energy. sustainable energy becomes the new cheap energy once we have used up all the cheap energy.

imo when i'm purchasing inputs for my business i always buy at the highest prices because i'm afraid of running out of supply at the cheaper prices. wtf? no wonder the extreme left always turns countries into busto basket cases.

x will run out so we shouldn't use x is not a valid argument against using x because there is no difference in the situation where you are not allowed to use x and where you have used all of x.

this is all irrelevant anyway because we have an energy source that is cheaper than 'renewables' and is 'unlimited'. nuclear energy will last us until the heat death of the sun.

last edited by hast at 14:27:11 01/Dec/09

Like it or not the way we think and produce energy is changing and it will be profitable.

Wow, I really didn't lash enough sarcasm?

this is all irrelevant anyway because we have an energy source that is cheaper than 'renewables' and is 'unlimited'. nuclear energy will last us until the heat death of the sun.

Nuclear Fusion will last even longer.

Wow, this is funny (and interesting) because its not just Infi v QGL anymore.

The Copenhagen talks will be dificult for Australia because as one of the largest per capita producers of carbon, and one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change, we aren't really in a position to negotiate too much.

Can anyone explain whether the ETS is linked to the carbon reduction targets that KRudd was planning to announce in Copenhagen?

Will he still announce targets without the ETS approved?

How could he expect to announce the targets without an ETS in place? Kevin will be very embarrassed if he cannot say he is doing his bit to save the world.

Surely we dont NEED an ETS to reduce emissions?

I guess he does need parliament to approve whatever measures he does come up with though.

Why can't we just do more to encourage Renewable and Nuclear power and employ road tax based on CO/2 emissions like they do in the UK etc.

all kev can say now is australia is considering a bill that proposes an ETS to achieve 'x' cuts in carbon emissions. That's a lot weaker than if he had a passed bill.

The ETS is simply a mechanism for reaching the carbon reductions, my understanding is the targets will still stand.

Also did you know an ETS was used to reduce sulphur dioxide levels by 50% from their 1980 levels to 2007?

An ETS on sulphur dioxide - that operates on the fringe of our economy, as compared to an ETS on say ENERGY.

The Copenhagen talks will be dificult for Australia because as one of the largest per capita producers of carbon, and one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change, we aren't really in a position to negotiate too much.

the more you pollute the better negotiating position you should be in because you are bringing more value to the table. if some country is going to be completely destroyed by climate change and you are a massive polluter or can credibly claim that you will pollute s*** loads then you have them by the balls. in a normal world which isn't f***ed by leftism victims of climate change would be paying polluters to give up their right to pollute :)



last edited by hast at 14:48:21 01/Dec/09

ill never forgive the liberal party if they make my kruddler look foolish on a world stage!!!!!

He did it to himself, spook.

What makes us one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change?

He did it to himself, spook.

if cuddly sunrise joe had won, it would have all gone to plan.

Because Joe wasn't going to take the fight to the Labor party.

of course not, him and kevin are buddies!

What makes us one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change?

2nd driest continent after Antarctica
Surrounded by water
etc.

What makes us one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change?

Coastal populations along with huge tracts of deserts that are potentially only going to increase in size ? And a huge influx of pacific islanders as their countries go under ? ... or a Doomsday device ... I dunno I made it up

YESSSSS
TONY ABBOTT IS AUSTRALIA'S POLITICAL SAVIOUR

Finally a proper liberal as the liberal leader, Right is Right and Correct!

NO ETS, AUSTRALIA IS SAVED FROM DOOM

Shiiiiattt, why didn't they just go the whole hog and coax the Rev Fred Niles over to lead the party? Hell, rename the party to The Australian Hillsong Church Party.

I called it earlier, Abbott was all doing it for a power play. That dirty smirk of his gave him away.

Edit:

Coastal populations along with huge tracts of deserts that are potentially only going to increase in size ? And a huge influx of pacific islanders as their countries go under ? ... or a Doomsday device ... I dunno I made it up

Also one of the largest (or was it largest?) natural reefs in the world.

i seriously don't know what half of you against abbott, you obviously haven't read a thing about him apart from what was on news.com.au

he's actually got a moral compass that works, not like half the confused old tards in parliament today.

He would seriously be the best thing australia has ever seen. Better than howard even.

don't forget Tony Abbott is in favour of paid maternity leave and is heavily involved in aboriginal issues. I think you will get to see a lot more of the real Tony Abbott now he is leader (just like we have seen the real Malcolm Turnbull). We have seen the real Kevin Rudd, but it seems Australians are in love with abusive psychopaths now.

He would seriously be the best thing australia has ever seen. Better than howard even.

Doesn't matter, the fickle Libs and their ever-changing leadership won't have him in power by the time they are in a position to repair all the damage done and come anywhere near winning an election.

His wry smirks just piss me off. Though I guess it's a nice tell. When asked a question and he gives the smirk it's him saying 'yep'.

Yeh Abbott can be good on some social issues I'll definitely give you that, but Malcolm is even more progressive. It's not like he's taking over from Howard.

I just hope he took note in the seminary and touches us all in that very special way(place).

Edit: They should bring Peter back in as deputy. Then we can have Abbot and Costello as a possibility of running the country.

last edited by Syco at 16:19:19 01/Dec/09

Co-worker pointed out this Abbott and Costello story ...
Court Decision

uhoh, stand back, infi and hardware are gonna have a make out session

seriously, abbot comes across as even more of a smug git than kevvy, and that's saying something!

Orbitor, I think its in a different way to Rudd though...

Rudd comes across as a dork to me...
Abbot comes across as the annoying bully who teased the dork.

I probably would have preferred Hockey, but I know that Abbot has a bit more backbone than Nelson or Turbull have, and he certainly has more of a chance of challenging Rudd at the next election than either of his two predecessors have.

last edited by mongie at 17:20:00 01/Dec/09

/bait

http://www.smh.com.au/business/abbotts-first-big-lie-interest-rates-20091201-k37h.html

get into that!

Ooooh don't dare disagree with the witchdoctor economists from the Reserve Bank - the same ones that were tightening interest rates in the months prior to the GFC. hahah reserve bank has ZERO credibility.

watch out tony they might cast a spell on you.

/bait

http://www.smh.com.au/business/abbotts-first-big-lie-interest-rates-20091201-k37h.html

get into that!

what the f*** is that s***ty blog post actually saying? first of all it fails for starting to play some f***ing stupid video, which looks totally different to the subject of the article (?) What was his actual lie? That article is news.com.au bad.

edit: I watched the video, it has nothing to do with interest rates

The only lie I can think of that would warrant a headline like that is if he got up their and said "I guarantee there won't be a rise in interest rates in the next, say, 3 hours". Did he do that, or something like that?

“Each and every interest rate rise over the next 12 months is due to the irresponsible spending spree of the Rudd Government,” decreed Big Tony.

is the alleged lie.

haha i loved the star wars music at the end. al gore is..... darth vader hahahaha

Heh, stolen from my forum:

Some said Turnbull was the man who could drag the Liberal Party kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Instead it appears they would prefer Tony Abbott: a man hellbent on dragging the entire country into the 12th Century.

Edit:

Hahaha s***, I got about half way through the video above. Lol at 'Climategate', I didn't realise Faceman was Indian. RARRR RARRRR RARRRR NEW WORLD ORDER RARRRRR

last edited by Syco at 18:39:38 01/Dec/09

yeah but Australia didn't even exist in the 12th century. I don't get it.

yeah but Australia didn't even exist in the 12th century. I don't get it.

Err.... OK then.

i like the part where SFB randomly throws insults around without responding to a single point made in this thread.




and people say infi is a partisan hack... SFB et al put him to shame imo. at least infi mostly backs up his rhetoric with reasoning.

Did someone feel left out.

Just call me Tony Abbott. I don't bother nowadays getting into a debate, I just call a spade a spade. No time for pleasantry, especially when it comes to politics.

Besides, not that interested in debating politics or worry about politics much anymore. All I care about is how soon retirement comes. Then I'm off and won't give a flyin' F.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 18:52:17 01/Dec/09

you can call a rake a spade all you like, it still won't turn that rake into a spade or any other piece of garden equipment for that matter.

^ Not interested.

at least infi mostly backs up his rhetoric with reasoning.

yeah ... sure ...

the only threads you seem to poke your crusty head into seem to be about politics so forgive me if i find that difficult to believe.

you're very interested in hurling insults at others who don't think exactly the same as you...

what you're not interested in is hearing anything that doesn't conform to your particular world view.

cognitive dissonance is a bitch, eh?

Oh f*** Off Taggs. You the forum police now.....wanker.

untwist those panties, sweetheart. it's very unbecoming for someone of your age to be using that kind of language!

but just keep proving my point for me, it's already got a few chuckles out of me so far.

i like the part where SFB randomly throws insults around without responding to a single point made in this thread.




and people say infi is a partisan hack... SFB et al put him to shame imo. at least infi mostly backs up his rhetoric with reasoning.

Seconded.

al gore confronted on climategate? More like al gore bemused by a bunch of crazy dudes shouting incoherent ramblings.

al gore on 30 rock made me laff

^^^ yeah i'll have that crap nuked thanks mods

^^^ yeah i'll have that crap nuked thanks mods

Nuke the whole thread IMO. About 5% is to do with the topic heh.

Going crazy and shouting crap about new world order just makes them seem like a bunch of crazy f***wits. Im leanig towards not believing climate change these days, but those guys arent helping.

On topic, do the liberals in this thread (infi and hardware) actualy think Abbot can win the next election?

"Today, we [the liberal party] went from being a past government to a true blue opposition" - Tony Abbott, 7:30 report.

I'm not a big fan of Tony Abbott, and don't think he will ever be PM, nor do I think he would make a very good PM - but thank f*** he got up today, as he seems to be the only candidate with the balls to block that rediculous ETS from getting rushed through the parliament.

There is no doubt climate change is an isue, there is no doubt in my mind that it's real. However, it is also one of the most important issues around, and due to the ambiguous and unknown nature of the problem, its probably best not to rush through a half arsed policy on potentially the biggest issue we face.

FFS, just because they block a s***ty ETS policy, doesn't mean they are climate change sceptics. They just don't like s***ty policy. (sure, there are a few sceptics on both sides, but they'll come around)

The current ETS has a laughable reduction in emissions, it needs to be much higher. I swear there Rudd has his own personal reasons for getting it rushed, probably so he can blow his horn at the big meeting of world leaders.

I like Tony. He's a genuine bloke who believes in core Liberal values. He has far more charisma than the "toxic bore", but the media hate him.

If the media give him a fresh start maybe he has a chance. If KRudd calls a double dissolution I think his chances will increase.

Listen to his sound bites over the next few days, I can guarantee he will really start to get on Kevin and Julia's nerves.

We have seen the real Kevin Rudd

The real Rudd seems to be a selfish wanker.

Found this browsing for a nice background today, i know its American, but its still funny and i wish there was an Aussie version.

http://www.roselandgop.com/wallpaper/1005-1366x768.jpg

The real Rudd seems to be a selfish wanker.

But he looks like a smooooth operator when meeting foreign dignitaries etc. I don't think I'd call anyone in politics personally selfish though, they could all earn so much more in private sectors. Abbott looks like a sly rat when appearing on TV and asked questions he already knows the answer to but can't answer yet. I guess he'd get along with Rome though being an ex priest in training and all.

Edit:

Found this browsing for a nice background today, i know its American, but its still funny and i wish there was an Aussie version.

Isn't the American 'liberal' sort of different to the Aus one? Like when they refer to 'Liberal Media' it normally comes off as an insult to the left.

last edited by Syco at 00:14:00 02/Dec/09

lol weedy, so true. for a generic replacement, just use "socialists" instead of "liberals".

Abbot was on the Today show this morning, seems alright I guess.

He says the libs will have alternative legislation for the ETS in the new year (when parliament resumes).

Should be interesting to see if all this s*** was worthwhile, or if their alternative is just as disappointing as the ETS is.

Perhaps we can start talking about what a more acceptable system to reduce emissions would be.

liberal in a general sense means on the left of the political spectrum.

it's just a coincidence that here is aus there is a centre-right political party is called the Liberal party. using the left-right spectrum is a very simplistic way of putting things though.

ok what is an acceptable system to reduce emissions?

I actually support a Carbon Tax over an ETS, because the price of carbon is clear which is good for business confidence. I support that in conjuction with the phase-in of increasingly strict energy efficiency legislation for appliances/vehicles/buildings/houses.

We should be clear that there is no solution that doesn't mean people won't have to pay more for their energy in the short term.

last edited by orbitor at 10:08:09 02/Dec/09

last edited by orbitor at 10:12:02 02/Dec/09

Will isn't the meeting in Copenhagen about that issue Orbitor?

well not really; the meeting in copenhagen is about moving towards binding post-kyoto emissions targets for nations. How those nations wish to implement targets is up to them.

Interesting Article from Princess Pete ... thoughts infi?



http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/a-mad-era-best-forgotten--along-with-hewson-and-latham-20091201-k3oz.html

He says the libs will have alternative legislation for the ETS in the new year (when parliament resumes).

carbon tax + legalize the nuke or some policy that involves nuclear energy. that would be the ultimate slap in the face to rudd. you can have abbott making the claim the only green base load alternative is nucleaar.

Anyone have any figures on Australia's biggest carbon generators?

Obviously power...
Cars?
Livestock?
what else?

krudds private jet

:D

ha ha

carbon tax + legalize the nuke or some policy that involves nuclear energy. that would be the ultimate slap in the face to rudd. you can have abbott making the claim the only green base load alternative is nucleaar.

Yeh if we want to make a mass change to electric power for things like metro cars then we do need reliable increased baseload. The options ahead of feasible fusion power are pretty thin on the ground.

Is geothermal etc viable yet?

Pretty sure the most viable renewable power source is Solar Thermal or wind... and I am pretty sure neither is suitable for base load.

Geothermal is more then viable... the problem is that it requires very specific conditions which only a handful of locations in Australia meet.

Lets go Nuclear.

i think the libs have proposed a bunch of amendments that make it even worse. wtf is abbott doing? coming out against the ETS legislation and then making a bunch of amendments that make it even more f*cked.

these are the amendments that are needed:

1) no ETS until other countries make committing leglisation. we should pass legislation that won't be enabled until x countries pass similar legislation or enabling legislation.
2) nuclear power is legalized
3) carbon tax > ETS
4) all revenue raised is given back to citizens in the form of tax cuts or increased welfare payments to compensate for the tax.
5) tax cuts/increased welfare payments should try to be neutral. if you want to increase taxes on non-families and decrease taxes on families then please use separate legislation so it is transparent.

the libs current amendments are ridiculously terrible. they just shovel more money to poltically influencial groups.

last edited by hast at 12:12:02 02/Dec/09

as much of a supporter of nuclear power as i am

i doubt they will ever allow it, purely because this countries economy is so heavily underpinned by coal

i doubt they will ever allow it, purely because this countries economy is so heavily underpinned by coal

You are aware that we are the Middle-East of Uranium, right?

We have 30% of the world's easily-accessible Uranium, and a quarter total! If fission becomes the king we are f***ing Dubai.

last edited by Hogfather at 12:18:32 02/Dec/09

I have no idea where to find figures on Australia's largest polluters...

Anyone have any ideas?

i doubt they will ever allow it, purely because this countries economy is so heavily underpinned by coal

labor won't allow it because they are taking their marching orders from the unions. greens won't allow it because they are retards. liberals won't allow it because the well has been poisoned by labor+green propaganda and they don't have any balls.

@slaps - Costello is spot on. Turnbull was arrogant and not a true Liberal. Neither Menzies nor Howard would have approved of his performance.

as for the ETS, I just believe you cannot drive innovation through taxation. if every problem we faced the solution was another tax we would already be taxed into oblivion. it is a very socialist way of addressing the problem and the biggest losers will be poorer people. taxes should be implemented for the delivery of SERVICES to the taxpayer.

government should be funding R&D tax concessions for renewable energy sources and methods of reducing carbon emissions in my opinion and allowing the market to figure this one out.