The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn Liberal
|
Things are getting just plain weird with Brendan Nelson. Yesterday he declared the need for an economic statement from the Government (whatever that is), including the following peculiar reasoning:
Um, OK. As Wayne Swan acidly noted in reply, there was an economic statement recently — in May, in fact — and Nelson hasn’t finished deciding whether he agrees with that one or not. Indeed, that’ll be the subject of this week’s Senate activity. He might’ve noted that the mid-year economic forecasts aren’t that far away either. I looked for Malcolm Turnbull’s views on the desirability of an economic statement but found nothing. I contacted his office, but they didn’t respond before deadline. Turnbull’s office is quite good at avoiding embarrassing Nelson when the latter wanders off the reservation. Which is nice. I imagine it’s not clear at all to most voters what the Opposition is opposing and what it’s not from the Budget. I get paid to follow politics and I’m not entirely sure that they oppose and what they support. And apparently they themselves aren’t sure whether they oppose or support removing the condensate tax concession. There’s a widely-held view that the Opposition is damaging its economic credentials by blocking tax increases. Maybe it will, amongst those paying attention, but that excludes 90% of voters. The bigger problem is the lack of coherence from the Opposition on what they’re doing. That’s what seeps through and shapes deeply-held views about political parties. We bagged the Government for lacking a narrative but the Opposition doesn’t have one either — more a jumble of non sequiturs and contradictions and half-beginnings, frequently written in capitals when Nelson lets his emotions rip. I mean, the Liberals say they’re the party of low taxes. But if so, why not support the change to the Medicare surcharge threshold? If they’re the party of economic responsibility, why are they blocking measures that will increase the surplus and refusing to say where funding for their 5c a litre excise reduction will come from? If they’re against the alcopop tax why have a summit on binge drinking? Each and any of these positions is perfectly justifiable — but not all at once. Especially not when you have Nelson arguing for those positions. The Government itself is not above non sequiturs. Ask them about anything to do with getting Green or Independent support in the Senate and the answer is invariably “it’s the Liberals’ fault.” Will they negotiate with Nick Xenopohon on Fuelwatch? “The Liberals should be supporting it.” Will they horse-trade with Steve Fielding over his legislative agenda? “The Liberals hold the key to passing bills.” How about the Greens? “No it’s the Liberals.” What’s the capital of Ecuador? “The Liberals.” However annoying, it’s part of a plan to keep the focus on the Opposition. Nelson’s call for an economic statement is an effort to shift the focus back to the Government, but everyone knows he’s wasting his time. All the focus is on him and won’t move until his colleagues move him out of his job. The Government went into the winter recess slightly dispirited. It was under pressure on fuel and grocery prices. Its big poll lead was starting to return to earth. Rudd’s honeymoon was ending for about the tenth time. Now it returns with the Coalition in disarray, Nelson politically dead and yet still lurching about, a Senate freed from Coalition control and an interest rate fall around the corner. I predicted Nelson wouldn’t make it to tomorrow’s Question Time. I was wrong, but I don’t reckon he’ll be with us much longer. |
|
|
19 Comments
Nice article Bernard.
Nelson’s clearly in a spin…you know, the one that he inherited from John Howard, Peter Costello, Tony Abbot etc etc. FuelWatch is a proven success with motorists in WA. It’s politically inane/irrespopnsible for Nelson’s Liberals to refuse to accept it.
Those Crikey commentators who oppose FuelWatch are drawn from that group who just can’t get used to the fact that Sleazebag Howard’s gone and Australia is a far nicer place as a result.
Finally, on a completely separate note, am I the only one who thinks Brendan Nelson shows a remarkable similarity to Beavis from Beavis & Butthead?
The Liberals have no narrative-unless the are (like the rest of us) breathlessly un-awaiting the tome of PC Plod. Also, how can they know what they oppose, unless they know what they stand for. (Ah someone beat me to that one.)
Judging by the previous three comments, everyone is in as thick as pea-souper as everyone else. Bingo! I have thought of a title for their, as yet, unannounced narrative. Drum roll, brum, brum, kebah. Bang, bang olé.
“Malice Through the Looking Glass!”
Starring Tony Abbott as the red queen.
Good article. The Libs have been dragged into this mess by not working through their identity and central themes sufficiently after the Howard years. If they weren’t going to keep Howard (eg by handing him a safe seat etc) then they needed to recognise that the post-Howard Liberal Party is a different beast to that which governed 1996-2008. Nelson’s job (which, increasingly, he seems incapable of) was to get the party focussed on its raison d’etre, its narrative and, finally, its personalities. He should have bashed the Labor government over its policy-on-the-run feebleness rather than get dragged into debates about trivial details. Nelson is on the path to be rewarded for his contribution to politics - the ALP should consider him for life membership for services to the Rudd government.
“The bizarre thing about” FuelWatch is that it is a political stunt which does SFA except make it illegal to lower fuel price from that advertised the day before.
There is good evidence to suggest that it may very well decrease rather than increase competition by further driving out the independents.
ACCC already did much to see that happen by supporting the big 2 grocers control of petrol retailing.
It is yet another cynical cheap retort by Rudd with much fanfare and no substance to bolster his populist rhetoric of the last election.
Wrt to Iraq and detention Labor has no moral high ground.
It’s only you who can be ‘justly’ self-righteous Marilyn and don’t we know it.
The bizarre thing about fuel watch is that it is just a data base to give drivers information on a daily basis, information that the oil companies don’t want people to have. The question is why the stupid liberals have made such a toxic stew over something so small and why the media have gone alone with it.
One of the excuses the oil companies use is that locking in prices for 24 hours is going to affect their profits, but supermarkets lock in food specials for 2 weeks at a time and manage to survive the process.
A data base will not blow up Iraq, nor lock up children in concentration camps yet the coalition were happy to squander over $6 billion on both of those measures while avoiding the truth about the consequences.
As for Brenda Brenda, more annoying every day of the week with Abbott a close second and Costello right up there because no-one actually gives a toss.
What’s Petro Geogiou up to nowadays?
I like the Hunter S Thompson reference in the article’s headline. Perhaps the Liberals should consider the platform Thompson adopted in his bid to be elected Sheriff of Aspen in the early ‘70’s. Legalised drugs and the stocks for dealers who rip off their customers!
JamesK you’ll need to reply to Ray three times, not just once, thanks.
I of course have NEVER hit Submit twice.
That 4 Corners profile on Turnbull was a bit on the light side wasn’t it? But what a fine mop of hair he had back in the day.
The libs are just doing in opposition what labor did in opposition & greens & independents have always done. When you have no responsibility for your actions it is very easy to condemn the government of the day & say you have all the answers.
Labor is just finding that it is easier to say than to do - and actions have consequences. In 3 yrs time I’m the plebs will have turned on labor & pine for the good old days under the libs. And so the cycle will turn again.
Then again it could just be about iraq.
Ray I will give you just three333 reasons (vs ur zero) why you are just talking out of your exhaust:
1. A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), which was tabled in the Federal Parliament on May 29, 2008, and it advised the Rudd Government of the negative impact a nationwide FuelWatch scheme will have on motorists.
Specifically: The report notes ‘the provision of this taxpayer funded service creates greater opportunities for price co-ordination amongst retailers, especially in more concentrated markets’ and that it ‘may create a perception amongst consumers that this option will deliver lower retail petrol prices.’
2. FuelWatch ‘spells death to independents’ The Age July 17, 2008 reporting on The Senate Inquiry into the National Fuelwatch Bill:
http: //news.theage.com.au/national/fuelwatch-spells-death-to-independents-20080717-3go4.html
3. The Service Association says:
The inability to reduce prices to remain competitive will disadvantage independents much more
than oil company and supermarket networks as these large organisations will be able to spread
the cost of being uncompetitive at one or two locations over a large number of other sites. The
single operator has no such fall back and must live or die every day on his/her ability to get it
right. Clearly, he/she won’t “get it right” every day and will lose ground in his/her battle with big
business.
http://www.ssa.org.au/news_events/pdf/fuelwatch_proposal.pdf
FuelWatch is a turkey and Mr. Swan(Hon or not) is not renown for “words of wisdom”
Unfortunately missed 4 Corners & Malcolm ‘The Bullet’ Turnbull, I was out.
Nice piece by Greg Barns tho’
Wrt the thrice requirement……. a cheap shot is a cheap shot is cheap
Of course the song and dance routine performed by Nelson over the excise on petrol and flip floping by Turnbull, yes we should, no we shouldnt all falls into the so what bucket of slops now…petrol has fallen by 15cents and still falling. What were the words of wisdom from the Hon Mr Swan, Oil will peak he said, wait and peaked it has and what harm is fuel watch doing? I dont hear the Libs in West Oz screaming to get rid of it. Of course there are the alarmists among us who will say anything to try and prop up the dip sticks that form the current Opposition, like it may very well decrease rather than increase competition. Really, where is the proof, I haven’t seen any, lot of talk, lot of dooms day writing. To be expected of course.
Of course the song and dance routine performed by Nelson over the excise on petrol and flip floping by Turnbull, yes we should, no we shouldnt all falls into the so what bucket of slops now…petrol has fallen by 15cents and still falling. What were the words of wisdom from the Hon Mr Swan, Oil will peak he said, wait and peaked it has and what harm is fuel watch doing? I dont hear the Libs in West Oz screaming to get rid of it. Of course there are the alarmists among us who will say anything to try and prop up the dip sticks that form the current Opposition, like it may very well decrease rather than increase competition. Really, where is the proof, I haven’t seen any, lot of talk, lot of dooms day writing. To be expected of course.
Of course the song and dance routine performed by Nelson over the excise on petrol and flip floping by Turnbull, yes we should, no we shouldnt all falls into the so what bucket of slops now…petrol has fallen by 15cents and still falling. What were the words of wisdom from the Hon Mr Swan, Oil will peak he said, wait and peaked it has and what harm is fuel watch doing? I dont hear the Libs in West Oz screaming to get rid of it. Of course there are the alarmists among us who will say anything to try and prop up the dip sticks that form the current Opposition, like it may very well decrease rather than increase competition. Really, where is the proof, I haven’t seen any, lot of talk, lot of dooms day writing. To be expected of course.
JamesK: Sorry for the late reply but I’m grappling with a tummy upset. Thanks for the meaning of WRT. Next question: You say WRT to Kevin Charles Herbert…”You would normally never ‘apply’. Is that correct? I’m not au fait with the use of apply in that sense. My I am being pedantic. Also, you say Perfervid (not perfidy). I too have a passionate, dare I say, burning, belief in truth.
Re the Turnbull report. IMHO it was interesting, but I thought to paint him as the saviour of democracy in Australia, was a wee bit over the top. Still I have to say I’m dead grateful that Kerry Packer was stopped from taking over the Age. (as I said in another comment months ago that nearly all the world’s printed media are on the skids-unless they have a solid presence in the electronic media. And that the Age had bu*gered up
their ‘on line section’. I don’t know if you’ve ever wanted to comment on an article in The Age, but all you will find is a huge list of the headings, followed by a comments closed notice. I guess if one commented at 8.30 am one would have a chance. The point of this long parenthesis, is that a few months ago I wrote a comment in Crikey expressing these thoughts, only to have one reader landing on me like a farmer in Mildura throwing an egg at Tim Holding-the outraged scribe, I must hasten to add, was not you. So, in the light of today’s massacre of editorial staff, I feel vindicated, but not happy) the whole I felt rather as if Malcolm Turnbull had paid for the whole glowing interview. I noted that every time he declined to speak to the press the last shot of him was a Roman Imperial profile image, complete with undershot jaw. I wonder if PC plod has got enough money to strut his stuff? on the ABC.
Have Crikey re-introduced a curfew on the amount of words?
Cheers
Venise
Kevin Charles Herbert: No! But he would be great as the White Rabbit in “Malice through the looking-glass.”
JamesK: Don’t you ever lighten up? You criticize Labor for having no moral high ground? To find moral ground anywhere in politics is inconceivable. But by criticizing Labor’s lack of it, yet you seem to be, ipso facto, implying that this “High Ground’ my be available in the Coalition.” Pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor. Under the odious reign of the little dwarf John Winston Howard, the meaning of the phrase “High Moral Ground” virtually disappeared out of Australian reportage. To even come within a whisker of suggesting the Liberal Party even knew what the words meant; demeans the intelligence of an extraordinarily dim-witted member of the family, phylum Mollusca.
PS: what does WRT mean.
PPS: Great article, even greater put-down of the writer of the lead comment.
Venise: wrt = with respect to., which in terms of Kevin Charles Herbert’s comments I would normally never apply….however wrt his Beavis & Butthead comparison: that was pretty good!
Wrt Pistol Pete Prince of Perfervid(not perfidy)….. he requires passionate support from his constituents…….plucky Pete needs you!
To use or apply the term: ‘with respect to’.
I would not normally apply or use the word or term ‘respect’ to a comment from KCH.
That’s a backhand insult aka a ‘backhander’!
I should’ve included Marilyn in the non sequitur list.
Petrol - “It’s about Iraq.”
Groceries - “well they don’t have food in Iraq.”
Childcare - “how many children died in Iraq.”
Climate change - “Iraq.”
Brendan Nelson yells “I care” repeatedly. Marilyn yells “Iraq.” Hmmm.