Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
A new Liberal climate position: the Minchin line
|
So now there’s another Coalition position on the Government’s ETS bill: Nick Minchin told 2UE this morning that the bill is unlikely to be passed by the Senate because of all the amendments that the Coalition, Greens and independents will want the Senate to consider. Minchin ruled out “filibustering” on the bill but he made it clear the Coalition would not support the bill coming on for a vote before Parliament rises for summer on 26 November. Incidentally, why’s Parliament knocking off a full month before Christmas? Ask Anthony Albanese, Manager of Government Business. He schedules things round here. But Minchin promised an “extensive committee stage” on the legislation. Let’s go back to basics here, just for a moment. Climate change is being used by the Government to wedge the Opposition mercilessly, in far more savage a fashion than John Howard ever managed to do to Labor on refugees or national security. There’s a lot of focus on a double dissolution election but why would the Government want an election when the Opposition has reduced itself to a rabble over the issue of an ETS? Why not sit back and watch the Coalition destroy itself over an issue it is plainly sorely divided on? Minchin — and Wilson Tuckey, who is backing the tactic too — is in effect saying that the Coalition will allow the Government to go on wedging it for three months longer, well into an election year. Delaying the vote until next year just means the same shenanigans that have been going on for a week and longer will continue over summer — another long, hot, fiery summer, most likely — continually reinforcing in voters’ minds how uncommitted to addressing climate change the Coalition is, and how deeply divided they are. Remember, this issue won’t go away if the Liberals change leaders. The Liberals almost seem on the verge of flying apart. Minchin is the first shadow Cabinet minister to break ranks. Who’ll be next? It wouldn’t be at all surprising if Malcolm Turnbull suddenly called a press conference and announced he was jack of the whole damn lot of them and was leaving. But that legislation will still be coming on whether Tony Abbott, or Joe Hockey, or Rowan Ramsey leads them. The dilemma, the wedge, the painful choice will still be there, waiting. Turnbull is the one offering the least painful resolution. In any event, for a double dissolution election, legislation merely has to “fail to pass”. As Senate Clerk Harry Evans has pointed out, the meaning of “fail to pass” is unclear, and the only point at which the issue could be decided in a court would be after the relevant legislation has been passed by a joint sitting, following an election. The Prime Minister’s advice to the Governor-General that a bill has “failed to pass” and the requirements of s.57 of the Constitution have been met can’t be challenged. You’d imagine Rudd wouldn’t bother. The Opposition is tearing itself apart. Why interrupt them? |
|
|
14 Comments
I guess one possible reason to interrupt them would be to get on with solving the problem, rather than politicking the issue to within an inch of our lives.
Hang on while I hold me breath waiting for this to eventuate.
Action such as that suggested by Senator Minchin and Wilson Tuckey also serves the purpose of reinforcing in the electorate’s mind another of the tropes that Labor likes to hang around the neck of the Coalition, that is, that they are ‘mean and tricky’. Also, that they are morphing into that dangerous beast that we do not wish to import to our shores, the American Republican Party. The Liberals must realise that what works as smart politics in the US is seen as distasteful in the extreme in the much more politically decorous confines of Australian politics.
Yes, there is no law against getting on with solving the problem by offering a range of incentives for scientists and interested businesses to start thinking outside of fossil fuels. The present approach in my view is merely designed to extract maximum money out of fossil fuels for the next 50 years before moving to something else probably just as bad like uranium, a scarily unstable element. The alternative would be to seriously address free energy which nobody except “the people” like because it is free or… free enough..If the governement were sincere, they would be making available research funding for a wide range of energy solutions - not just solar and wind, but also wave, geothermal, zero-point electro magnetic and any other wondrous concept out there. I dont think it will take 50 years to get some of these things over the line.
So as I continue to say..ETS is a hoax - a UN tax on the people of the world.
“Delaying the vote until next year just means the same shenanigans…”
No, it doesn’t just mean that. Next year means post-Copenhagen. Delaying a vote until then is at least defensible. But after that all bets are off. The range of options still open will be considerably narrower, and standing in the way of legislation at that point is not a place you’d want to be, politically or in any other sense.
Oh. This is actually what I’ve been trying to say for a long time now.
Note to self: read what the next few Crikey articles say before commenting on the first one.
The Coalition has had 12 or so years to get on with it. In 1999 they were going to with Senator Robert Hill being warmly congratulated by Howard, and the commitment to reversing the effects of our greed and abuse of the planet was there, and then along came George W with his wealthy mates in the oil and mining industries, had a chat in Howard’s ear and Howard changed his mind! This is a fact, and it was only when Howard saw that the electorate, particularly young people were fired up over global warming, that he put out a ‘commitment’ (probably only for re-election purposes)to stop the effects of climate change. It was a farce, built on a lie - that can’t be argued against now, after their behaviour.
If they’d been re-elected, we probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The Opposition are going further down in the polls, and yet they’re too stupid or on a death wish to start behaving like sane, rational human beings with a real commitment to the Australian people, let alone the planet! If I hear one of them speaking about ‘policies’ or the electorate, and how we’re sick of the infighting blah blah or whatever I’ll scream! They don’t give a rat’s ? about any of us! That’s the plain and simple truth!
I hope Rudd does call an election for about August(or the last date for a double dissolution election) and they get well and truly done! They deserve it! Then, they can get rid of Tuckey, Minchin and the like and start again. I personally don’t care! I’m more than happy to have the Greens take their place - any time! Then, we might have a chance of preventing catastrophic climate change for my grand kids and theirs!
I’m sorry but I don’t think Labor could wedge the opposition the amount they have if the opposition wasn’t so busy wedging itself. I mean really “we never talked about climate change before the last election” (or something like this). What are they doing to themselves. I think the opposition was taught too well by JH on how to wedge but forgot to learn the golden rule it needs to be done on the opposition not inside the party.
I agree Adam. As clever as it is for the ALP to pursuade so me to suspend disbelief at their King Coal commitment to dirty export dollars it’s mostly the Coalition’s own doing. Pathological conservatism/dinosaur attitudes are alive yet. I mean what is a talent like Greg Hunt doing in a party with Wilson Tuckey? Or Joe Hockey for that matter with Bronwyn Bishop? Lord have mercy.
Methinks the Opposition are still going through the post Howard reconstruction. All those MP and ex ministers still tainted by the Iraq war failure will be dead pscyhological wood still.
Which is why Rudd was mad to appoint Nelson, a serious mistake. Because it could infect Rudd’s own side of politics and amplify his own ambivalent record on the Iraq war as then foreign minister. Nelson a decent bloke? Get real. Really the clean slate provided by the ALP on that war is all down to Simon Crean which is why the latter rides high as ex leader trade minister today - the tribe are surely grateful Creany guessed/exercised conscience the right way back in 2002/3, and the dividends of that just keep paying off.
I’ve read that Howard still goes into his office and traverses the main news and if he does that like this writer crunching the disjunctions, perusing the opportunities, scoffing at the misconceptions and inexperience etc etc, without the time crushing responsibilities to appease some perverse group process, then he is still very much an influence, something of a player, and a yes a lead weight on a revived Coalition.
Howard led them to a crushing defeat. Now Howard’s leftover swill are killing his Party and the Coalition. It’s hard to feel any sympathy. Praising the ALP for their good fortune seems equally misplaced.
Hockey, that “no I’m not a contender for leader” boofhead, again today made the usual comment after yet another shocking poll…”we must remain focused, we must stop the infighting etc etc etc”, yep Joe you must, but you don’t. You and your lot get worse by the day Joe boy. Of course Howards grubby hands are all over this lot. Look at some names going public against Turnbull. Minchin, Abbott, Tuckey,Brandis, Fifield, Abetz to name but a few, all Howards men through and through. Abbott makes no secret of being in almost daily contact with the rodent. Lets wait and see how long it takes for one of his troops to take up his demands for more Australian troops in Afganastan. Interesting he made the call from America, wonder who has been wining and dining him this time around. He is an evil little thug, down but not out. I have no doubt he is stirring the pot and those who dream of the days that were, are only to happy to do his bidding still. Turnbull can never get any peace as long as that disgusting man is around. Incidently I hear on the lunch news, Turnbull is calling a party meeting for Sunday 18th October, the day before Parliament resumes. Wonder why? Bernard ear to the ground please
It’s a wonder Howard can’t hear me from here - even though he’s in the US! They can keep him - add him to Murdoch! I scream every time I hear Howard’s ‘opinion’. I’m not bloody interested in anything he has to say, and that includes a weather report? I yell, we got rid of you, go away! I don’t think much of any of the names you mentionedRaymond! Yuk!
If Howard is so keen on more troops in Afghanistan, let him lead his kids there. Those poor little buggars in Afghanistan make my heart ache! Haven’t we killed enough already? Funny how nobody mentions numbers. I recall a US General when asked about numbers of dead in Iraq; his response was, ‘we don’t do body counts’. He should’ve added, ‘we don’t do the Geneva Conventions either’?
Fancy not being ‘rushed’ into the seat, and to lose to a woman, my god, what an embarrassment? I laughed my head off! Serves them right!
Go get them Liz, you ripper
As I mentioned in a comment on the Mackerras article here last week, Rudd isn’t interested in the niceties of the constitution re parliamentary terms, he is out to destroy Turnbull and put the Libs into opposition for another two terms at least. Alex
Much as I am enjoying watching the Liberals suffer, I would prefer to see the expletive bill passed.
Which is what would happen if the Liberals called a conscience vote on the matter. Agreed to disagree, as it were. Live to fight another day.
Not likely to happen I hear you say?
Not while both sides of the Liberal party think that _this_ is the issue that they can use to seize control.
“We had to destroy the party to save it.”
Hang on a minute! Did anyone watch Turnbull on the 7.30 Report tonight? Didn’t he say that the first time a ?? about climate change was introduced into Parliament was by the Liberal Party, via him? Can anyone please tell me what his point was? The Libs were the first and only party fair dinkum party about climate change? No? Perhaps I’ve missed something! If he introduced “it” please remind me what it said, and why are they thrashing around now? Different policy? How’s that exactly? Will a journalist please ask him to explain, soon please? Does the present situation mean that the rest of the Libs didn’t agree when Turnbull introduced it into the Parliament? Oh! Was there disunity in the ranks then too? Perhaps it was just a ‘lip service, claytons policy’? You know, the one you have when you’re not really fair dinkum about a real policy! I’m totally confused now! I missed the chance I had to tell Malcolm what a hero he was! Damn!