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.
Wong kicks Turnbull when he’s down
|
Even for an issue that has been characterised by spin, stunts and the government’s grating and relentless political opportunism, Penny Wong’s letter to Malcolm Turnbull on the CPRS timetable is a particularly low-rent effort to further damage the Liberals. Remember that the government’s priorities on climate change are to first to inflict as much damage on the Opposition as possible, and secondly to get its CPRS legislation passed, and thirdly to address Australia’s contribution to climate change. They’d be happy to get all three, of course, but 1. would be nice and 1. and 2. real beaut. That’s why the government, via the ever-more sanctimonious Wong, has shifted its CPRS game from the Senate to the Coalition party room, where Turnbull faces a severe leadership test to get a decent majority of his Liberal colleagues to back a deal with the government. Wong’s letter demands that the Opposition front up with its amendments on the first day back from (yet another) parliamentary break. That’s October 19. Yesterday, Ian Macfarlane, the climate sceptic and member of Clive Hamilton’s “dirty dozen” greenhouse mafiosi who finds himself filling in for Andrew Robb on the ETS, indicated he would have a set of amendments ready for consideration by his colleagues in the party room meeting of that date. The Opposition leadership is planning to use the sittings to get recalcitrants in their own ranks on board. Wong, in a bizarre intervention in another party’s internal processes, is demanding that the Coalition settle its position once and for all in that October 19 meeting. Remember, this is for a scheme that won’t now start for just under two years. The purpose of Wong’s letter is two-fold. It is intended to focus more attention on the Coalition’s problems, and those of the Liberals in particular, in working out a position. And it is intended to reduce the chances of the Liberal leadership doing just that. Turnbull has had to play a patient game with his colleagues, coaxing them bit by bit to the realisation that the government has them over a barrel on climate change and it is in the Coalition’s best interests to get the issue off the agenda and avoid the possibility of a double dissolution election. It has taken time to get them this far and will take longer to get them to support a scheme of any kind. For all the claims — justified — of Turnbull’s bull-at-a-gate approach, he has been subtle and effective at poking and prodding his party in the right direction. If Turnbull fails — particularly if his party room rejects his amendments, undermining his authority and scuppering the chances of a deal — it may well be fatal to his leadership. At the very least, it will correctly give the impression Turnbull lacks the authority to lead his party on what is regarded as a key issue by voters. The government knows this. It’s why the government wants Turnbull to fail in his party room, and that’s why it is pressuring him. It is raw power politics, for very high stakes. Turnbull’s cause isn’t helped by the emerging split between senators and MPs in his own ranks. Senators at the top of their parties’ Senate tickets can affect insouciance at the prospect of a double dissolution election. They’ll be returned to the red benches without having to lift a finger. Marginal-seat MPs, facing polls showing Labor lifting its vote from 2007, and in some states having had their margins redistributed away from them, may not be so disposed to laugh in the face of death. There won’t be enough Senate recalcitrants to derail the CPRS bill — Turnbull’s shadow Cabinet Senators are enough to ensure passage if they vote with the ALP, even if all backbenchers vote against — but there’ll be plenty enough to badly wound Turnbull in the party room. What’s amusing about the press coverage of the letter is that, for once, The Oz gave the government the benefit of the doubt, while Fairfax nailed it straight off. “The Rudd government has opened the way for real negotiation and amendments on its historic carbon emissions trading scheme,” said Dennis Shanahan. The tone of Shanahan’s coverage seems to change in a markedly pro-Rudd direction whenever he travels with the PM. Phil Coorey and Anne Davies had it right in the SMH, calling it an “ultimatum” intended to lift pressure on Turnbull, as did David Crowe and John Breusch in the Fin. And it’s all the more ironic given this is happening while Rudd and Wong are posing in New York as good-faith participants in efforts to achieve a global climate change deal. There’s about as much good faith in the government’s CPRS tactics as there’ll be carbon reduction in the scheme itself. |
|
|
19 Comments
when a Tory is down-never let them get back up.. Bernard , if you sleep with dogs - you get fleas-all bad tories ( yes, they are all wrong thinking)-they should know this-they have crawled long enough down in the gutter with the agrarian socialists of the Nats who who bludged off the australian taxpayer for too long… they are all pre-copernican obscurantists-for a meaning of that phone Paul Keating… he knows what a tory is… some of rudds crowd are weird as well but who do we blame for that — the tories-they hung around so long like a rotten bad smell that a new generation of blood suckers are around to suck us all dry…when you are in Power-use it like the Rotten Howard tories exercised… and FUCK everyone in your road….
You call it what you want but the fact is these dim bastards have had almost two years to sort out their denial of climate change and the earth is flat. They deserve everything Labor throws at them. Has anyone done a check to see if the Rodent is still living in the big house on the hill and Turnbull is just his conduit.
karma’s a b*tch, you reap what you sow etc etc.
perhaps Labor would be a little more circumspect and forgiving towards the Liberals if Malcolm and Senator Aids and Abetz didn’t run so hard with what they thought was a smoking gun, ala godwin and utegate.
really, you could see the tories really believing they had the next election.
Also, the electorate voted a big fat no to the coalitions previous climate policy. we may not like early elections but i think you will find if a double dissolution occurs the libs will be decimated. and no more steve fielding
Wong at the local Maccas takeaway: “Will you have wedges with that, Malcolm?”
’ “The Rudd government has opened the way for real negotiation and amendments on its historic carbon emissions trading scheme,” said Dennis Shanahan. ‘
Dennis Shenanigan has for some time considered himself a player of the great game. Everything he says is devious.
Is he still hoping to bring about a double dissolution and hurriedly insert another Coalition leader just in time? Perhaps a leader who has totally announced his resignation but still writes on federal politics for the Australian?
Judging from what has emerged from the G20 …Gee nothing at all, as Australia’s representative, I would be not hanging Australia out to dry in a desperate final lunge to gain an international posting after my PM days were through. The Chinese have pretty much told the others to mind their own business, the Indians aren’t interested and other than the people from the Maldives, no-one has gotten very excited about climate change. Platitudes poured from the lips of the American representative but nothing as usual of a concrete nature materialised. I think that Turnbull should not commit to this farce until he knows where the debate is heading. Rudd’s self aggrandisement needs to be closeted and in its stead he needs to develop a meaningful, Australia’s interests first, position. I have always said the first step to fixing potential climate change (can anyone tell me if temperatures have actually risen in the last 10 years?) is to stop cutting down the rainforests. (Even one of those bogus UN associations is now saying exactly the same thing). So maybe Rudd should direct his attack at the IMF and the World Bank who have been dangling a whopping bag of loan money in front of the Third World which to its credit, no one wants to touch because every time someone does, they end up losing millions of hectares of their rainforests to international developers, not to mention many other raw materials. I think Turnbull should tell Wong and Rudd exactly what the Third World is telling the IMF - Drop Dead! If not, I am pretty sure that his own party will be directing similar verbiage to him soon enough.
I like this article because it exposes Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong for what they’re really like.
“…It’s why the government wants Turnbull to fail in his party room, and that’s why it is pressuring him. It is raw power politics, for very high stakes….”
The political powerplay is more important to them than the issues of climate change.
Patrick, I don’t agree that the electorate voted a big fat no to the coalitions previous climate policy. Most people seem to think that the main reason the coalition lost the 2007 election was work choices and I agree with this assessment. The other policies may not have been rejected. Malcolm Turnbull, as Environment Minister in the last term of the Howard government, was seriously trying to deal with the issues at hand and he had some major successes on water management.
Julian Blackall!!
Hi mate. It’s been a long time. If it’s the same guy that I remember, you’ve had a big change on the road to Damascus!
We’ll have to agree to disagree; The Libs have cornered themselves and now Rudd is standing over them with a skewer… As others have said, it needn’t have been this way. If the Libs had used their heads a little better over the last few years, then things could be a lot different.
Keep well feller.
Julian, I’m definitely not the person you’re thinking of. My name is Jillian (female), rather than Julian (male). It sounds like there is someone out there with a similar name but very different political views.
Bernard: As a founding member of your fan club I, nevertheless, sense a certain sort of “We woz robbed” tone to your article. Naturally you are keen-no pun intended: (how many hundreds of times have you had to hear that one?) for Malcolm Turnbull to retain his leadership of the Liberal Party, otherwise we will end up in a state of semi- totalitarianism. However, you do seem to be crying rape.
What has Kevin Rudd et al done that the Liberals-led by a congenital liar-wouldn’t do if they were in the same place? After all, it took Malcolm Turnbull to come out with the Godwin Grech affair.
The correct thing for Malcolm to do is to tear them up - both the coward’s letter and the ETS document.
“Wong kicks Turnbull when he’s down”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I would have no problem with the tactics the Government is using if the legislation they were putting forward was any good. When they first announced the details and were condemned by both business and conservation groups, Rudd suggested this meant they must have ‘got the balance right’. In reality, the scheme does little good for everyone.
If they had a bold genuine scheme for reducing carbon pollution, then they could take the moral high ground in the way they are doing, but it’s very empty and cynical to carry on the way they are in defence of a useless set of legislation that will merely pass money around the economy without generating a genuine price signal on carbon.
does that make Wong right or right Wong? she is a poor performer that has too much testosterone for my liking!
And that SIMMOBC is a case of playing the man not the ball. Tsk sk tsk.
And why would the Labor Party want to get rid of Malcolm?
@Venise - GROAN. Fantastic pun, wish I’d said it.
MESKI: Thank you! I’m glad you got it.
Cheers
Venise
Simmobc you get the prize for crypto-racism with a sexist twist. That was contemptible