Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Federal

Oct 17, 2011

Essential: we don't like carbon tax any more now it's passed

Opinion of the carbon tax has been little affected either by the government's political success in negotiating it through the House of Representatives nor by the perceived unseemliness of the triumphalism that followed.

Share

We don’t like the carbon tax any more since legislation passed the House of Representatives. But we don’t like it any less after the perceived unseemliness of the triumphalism that followed its passage.

That’s the message in new polling from Essential Research, which shows little change in the level of support for Labor’s landmark legislative achievement.

Conducted between Wednesday and Sunday, the online survey of 1047 respondents shows 39% supporting the carbon tax against 53% opposed. This is slightly better for the government than the Galaxy poll in today’s News Limited tabloids (34% support and 57% oppose), but effectively unchanged on Essential’s survey of September 19. And it continues a pattern where Essential Research’s online panel methodology has consistently produced less unfavourable results on this issue than phone polls.

Essential also gave respondents three options for what should happen to the tax if Labor is defeated at the next election, in contrast to Galaxy’s approach of asking whether a victorious Tony Abbott would have a mandate for its repeal (to which 60% said yes).

Thirty-four per cent favoured a double dissolution to secure the repeal of the tax, with 33% prepared to allow that the tax should remain “if it proves to be effective in reducing carbon pollution”. More than 20% felt it should remain in any case “to provide certainty for individuals and business”. As always with questions related to the carbon tax, a strong polarity was recorded between Coalition and Labor/Greens voters.

Respondents were also asked to take their pick from 12 options to describe the positions taken by the leaders on asylum seekers, and the results provide consistently unflattering reading for Julia Gillard. The bitterest pill would be that she outscored Abbott on both “too soft” (21% to 7%) and “too hard” (10% to 6%).

Abbott even managed to record an effectively equal score to Gillard on his traditional negative of “just playing politics” (47% to Gillard’s 46%).

There is some relatively good news for the prime minister on the monthly measure of leaders’ personal ratings, in the shape of an 11-point improvement in her net approval rating after a disastrous showing in the September 12 poll. Gillard’s approval is up six points to 34% and her disapproval down five to 59%, and her deficit on better prime minister is down from four points (40% to 36%) to one (39% to 38%).

Abbott’s ratings have recorded no significant change: his approval and disapproval are both up one, to 40% and 51% respectively.

On voting intention, the major parties have recorded no change on last week’s result. The Coalition continues to lead 48% to 33% on the primary vote and 55% to 45% on two-party preferred, with the Greens up a point to 11%.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

165 comments

Leave a comment

165 thoughts on “Essential: we don’t like carbon tax any more now it’s passed

  1. Suzanne Blake

    No we don’t like it Willaim. It will make Australia more uncompetitive and negatively impact our quality of life and do NOTHING for the global environment

  2. Jimmy

    SB – Please provide evidence for your statement or stop repeatedly making it! And the we you are referring to is what 55% of the poulation based on combinng 2 polls of 1000 people, I think you need a bigger majority than that to be convincing. And finally a majority does not make a point of view correct.

    As for this article, who really cares why do we have this constant poll driven analysis when we are 2 years away from an election. Does it really mean that much that the ALP has snuck up 1% in 2PP? Let’s have more policy analysis and more policy analysis!!

  3. dfgdgdf

    Yes we do like it William. It will make Australia more competitive in the area of renewable energy, it will positively impact our quality of life by giving extra payments or reduced taxes to the majority of the population, the effects on the global environment may or may not be minimal but it will be good for the local environment and it sure beats doing nothing.

  4. Jimmy

    SB – Please provide evidence for your statement or stop repeatedly making it! And the we you are referring to is what 55% of the poulation based on combining 2 polls of 1000 people, I think you need a bigger majority than that to be convincing. And finally a majority does not make a point of view correct.

  5. Jimmy

    who really cares why do we have this constant poll driven analysis when we are 2 years away from an election. Does it really mean that much that the ALP has snuck up 1% in 2PP? Let’s have more policy analysis and more policy analysis!!

  6. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jimmy

    The majority does make the point of view correct in Australia. Its doesn’t in a Community Country, I agree, but it does in Australia.

    Majority is how democracys run. Sorry to let you down.

    Gillard wants to increase costs for Australian businesses. So that make us uncompetitive.

    The compensation Gillard says will compensate, wow you get an extra $33 a year on their formula. But you cannot trust labor, they have wasted billions elsewhere and have demonstrated they cannot estimate anything.

  7. Mary Rose Liverani

    Suzanne, I’d find your assertions a lot more impressive if you could support them with data – or is that too much to ask in a ‘discussion’? Or at least show that you have made it your business to exam Gillard’s arguments closely and can rebut them with alternative data and sound reasoning.

    That way, we might all learn something.

    Shifting tack slightly, what is it about Crikey that makes me think it’s only affecting to be different from the other media? Why give space to polling results for instance? In the present climate their only role is to keep stoking the faggots being stacked up around the PM.

    MRL

  8. Jimmy

    “The majority does make the point of view correct in Australia” Sorry Suzanne but that is not the case, the majoirty of people thought Collingwood would win the AFL grand final, not correct. At one stage the majority thought the world was flat, not correct. And even if you were to say the majority was correct would that mean that a carbon price was the correct thing in 2007 but now it isn’t, and in 2015 when Abbott wants to call a double dissoultion if the polls then show a majority of people want to keep it does that make it incorrect?

    Also how do we measure this majority, in 1999 beazley won the majority vote but we still ended up with a howard govt and a GST that was unpopular in the polls.

    “Gillard wants to increase costs for Australian businesses. So that make us uncompetitive.” This isn’t evidence SB, where are the numbers, where is the qualified opinion? Who are we competing against, which businesses will be effected?

  9. Jimmy

    MAry – Shifting tack slightly, what is it about Crikey that makes me think it’s only affecting to be different from the other media? Why give space to polling results for instance?

    Completely agree!! I made a similar comment but it is stuck in moderation for who knows why.

  10. Suzanne Blake

    @ Mary Rose Liverani

    Mary, its quite simple. Australian companies produce goods and services and their is a cost base. If anything increases the cost base, we need to increase prices.

    We increase prices and then have to compete in local and overseas markets.

    We are competing against importers who dont have Carbon Tax in their cost base
    We are competing against other exporters and local in country companies to sell our goods and services, who dont have this added cost base.

    Failing that, we reduce our margins, pay less tax, perhaps employ less – regardless Australia is the loser.

    We already have a high cost base, we are making it worse.

    With the multiplier impacts throughout economy, its make it even worse.

    The compensation package, while inadequate, does not compensate beyond the initial price, when who knows what it will be.

  11. Ninja toes

    @SB

    The majority of people once believed the earth was flat, women were inferior to men, and that aboriginal people were not human beings. It takes radical thinking, often in the minority, to challenge and change the minds of the majority. Which side of history the climate debate belongs on is yet to be decided (although I’m confident it’s true), but humanity gets nowhere by toeing the majority line.

    Debating these kinds of predictions seems pointless anyway; we’ll all get to see the actual results of the tax in a few short years. If you’re so confident of your prognostications, then feel free to crow on that sad (and imaginary) day.

  12. jeebus

    Did anyone honestly think passing a new tax is going to improve a government’s approval ratings? Regardless of the polling, history is likely to judge it as better late than never.

    @Suzanne, you’ve obviously never heard the phrase, “Lead by example”. Our actions create momentum for other nations to act. As many have said, climate change is a great moral issue of our times and we have a responsibility to future generations to start bearing the costs now so that their costs won’t be exponentially greater.

    Australia as a nation is wealthier than it has ever been. If there are people and businesses struggling during our golden age, it’s not the fault of the carbon tax. It’s a question of whether the benefits of our national resources are being shared fairly.

    And that’s another worthy issue of discussion altogether!

  13. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    I think that in ten (or maybe twenty) years time we will see that both major sides of the climate debate were wrong.

    The deniers will be seen to be wrong as temperatures continue to rise, and the effects of climate change become even more apparent.

    And all those who now think that the carbon tax is real action will come to realise that the action taken by Australia (and the rest of the world) was far too little for any significant prevention of global warming.

    I do wonder what those who now either deny climate change or who think that the tax is real action will think of themselves when the planet makes clear that they were wrong.

    Australia is predicted to suffer the consequences of climate change worse than most others, so I guess we will get what we deserve.

  14. TheTruthHurts

    Chinese made product in dirty coal fired power station = No Carbon Tax

    Australian made product made with the cleanest technologies available = Gillard Carbon Taxed

    Can someone remind me how this is meant to reduce emissions again?

    The tax is too complicated, too costly to Australian business and won’t work. Gillards own Carbon Tax calculator says anyone making over $50K a year will be worse off, so why would Aussies be excited about it?

    Do it right and do it once, put an export tariff on coal and make the Chinese and Indians pay a Carbon Tax. Use the funds raised to allow households to purchase solar panels/solar hotwater in northern Australia and gas heating/gas hotwater in southern Australia.

    Of course I’m being way too logical, my plan would actually work at both reducing WORLD global emissions and Australian emissions without the Aussie taxpayer worse off.

  15. guytaur

    When are these polls going to start polling 1000 people per electorate?

  16. san jose

    i’m still going to buy tomatoes from the local organic farmer than those imported from…..india?
    i’m, still going to buy my cheese and spinach pasties from the local bakery over those imported from…..korea?
    i’m still going to buy my cacti from the local nursery over those imported from…..iceland?
    and don’t get me started on coopers beer…..no seriously, don’t 😉

  17. Suzanne Blake

    @ jeebus

    If lead by example, gets your an approval rating in the 20% range, good luck to you and all your endeavours.

  18. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jimmy

    The poll was 79,000 people?

  19. Peter Sandery

    is it compensation or a form of bribery enshrined in a legislative fiat?

  20. SBH

    Willaim – William
    more uncompetitive – less competetive
    negatively impact – adversly affect
    Its doesn’t in a Community country – err? It and Communist country perhaps?
    democracys – democracies
    have wasted billions – oh please
    local in country – local in-country
    With the multiplier impacts throughout economy, its make it even worse.
    The compensation package, while inadequate, does not compensate beyond the initial price, when who knows what it will be. – Oh sweet jesus, where do I start?

    Suzanne Blake, could you at least try?

  21. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jimmy

    The polls are very important, cause this Government could topple at anytime.

    Even you should be able to see that with the cabinet leaks on the weekend. Its least stable Government in Australia for 80 years.

  22. TheTruthHurts

    [“The majority of people once believed the earth was flat, women were inferior to men, and that aboriginal people were not human beings. It takes radical thinking, often in the minority, to challenge and change the minds of the majority. “]

    At some point(late 1970’s i reckon) the left ran out of valid causes so had to invent new ones.

    “Climate Change”(wasn’t it Global Warming a few years ago?) is the latest crusade.

    I don’t actually disagree with the theory behind global warming in that humans are effectively taking solids and liquids out of the ground and turning them into gases which are then released into the atmosphere upsetting the natural carbon cycle.

    My problem is that “Climate Change” is being focused on when that giant purple elephant in the room that is the real issue is being completely ignored by the moral doomdayers. And that elephant is called Population Growth. It took mankind 1 Million years to reach a population of 3 Bill in 1960. Yet to reach the next 3 Bill it only took another 40 Years. To me thats disturbing. But then it gets worse, by 2030 there will be another 3 Billion.

    So from 1960 to 2030 the world population has tripled from 3 Bill to 9 Bill.

    But here we are…. talking about Climate Change. Some lefties decided this was the issue we would talk about and focus on so here we are. Well no, I’m not a sheep following the flock, being told what to believe and what our cause as humans must be. What is happening now is the biggest conjob on mankind in the history of this planet. 5% cuts, 10% cuts, it’s all just silly numbers by silly people. What this world needs is radical changes to reign in population growth, both here in Australia and worldwide. THEN you can talk cuts.

  23. guytaur

    The Parliament did what the majority of people voted for this week.
    Passed a price on carbon to set up an ETS.
    Rejected off shore processing.

    It is just due to media hype and Labor stupidity they are not rising faster in the polls. Give it time. Like Howard and his rock bottom polls this will turn around with time. All weekly polls do is help keep people in jobs and stimulating the economy. Monthly or even two monthky polls would not make much difference except to the HUN headline writers.

  24. Jimmy

    Suzanne – “We are competing against importers who dont have Carbon Tax in their cost base
    We are competing against other exporters and local in country companies to sell our goods and services, who dont have this added cost base.” Which countries? China, South Lorea, South Africa, Europe, New Zealand no all those have or soon will have a Carbon Price, so which countries and which industries?

    Could you also provide some economic data or report to support your argument!

    “The poll was 79,000 people?” Which poll? What are you talking about?

    TTH – “Chinese made product in dirty coal fired power station = No Carbon Tax” YOu might want to check that fact, China is implementing a carbon tax and has just a announced a tax or it’s resources.

    “Gillards own Carbon Tax calculator says anyone making over $50K a year will be worse off” YOu should check that fact as well, is that a single person, someone with 1 child or more? Not even the wildy inaccurate opposition makes this claim.

  25. san jose

    THETRUTHHURTS re: depopulation – you could always lead by example? be the change you want to see in the world? but no i guess, “the world needs less people. but i need to stick around to tell them that”

  26. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @SB,

    Do you really believe that the government could topple at any time?

    If you have any intelligence and have been following the reality of federal politics you would see that the government is stable and (at least until Labor decide they want an election) so is Gillard’s leadership.

    Note that I’ve yet to hear any independent or Adam suggest that they may not support Labor in the lower house in a motion of confidence.

    And as the deal with Adam and the independents was made with Gillard, and not Labor, much negotiation would have to happen for Labor to ditch Gillard, i.e. this means that Gillard is secure for now.

    Of course the media have got carried away with the circus of politics, and there are those support team Abbott that sing and dance as if the circus show meant something.

    Just like I doubt I’ll ever find out what Peter Garrett really thinks, I doubt we will ever know for sure what the Liberal cheer squad really think. But I do find it hard to believe that SB really is as ignorant and stupid as her postings would suggest.

  27. Jimmy

    SB – “The polls are very important, cause this Government could topple at anytime.” What and if it does we have to go to the last opinion poll to decide govt? Seriously how does knowing what way 1000 people you have never met are going to vote alter your view on the issues? The only people who find polls to be “very important” are people to stupid to make up their own mind. No wonder you made that statement then.

  28. Jimmy

    MWH – “But I do find it hard to believe that SB really is as ignorant and stupid as her postings would suggest.” Believe it.

  29. kevrenor

    TTH – “Of course I’m being way too logical ..”

    Oh dear, that brightened up my day. Mirth is good for the health they say.

    Now. less than a week and Crikey has a headline like that? No wonder I keep baulking at becoming a subscriber … you keep failing!

  30. SBH

    Jimmy, a low blow so soon after the event. Next year, you’ll see, next year.

    As to polls, today’s ABC reporting and analysis of last week’s events was a prime example of how unhelpful Australian media have become. The triumph of a minority government getting something through like a carbon price was nowhere near as fascinating as an inconsequential and fairly standard cabinet ‘leak’.

    Rather than focus on what the effect of defeat of the Malaysia solution might be, Grattan and Kelly faffed on about why Gillard decided to run with the bill then backed off (spoiler alert – she did that because it looked like it might get up until the morning of the vote). No discussion about what the actual events meant for our system of processing asylum applications.

    They then went on about what might happen in the event of a double dissolution! Great, really interesting stuff but you might as productively discuss what might happen if a meteor the size of Manhattan were to strike the Earth (for my fellow pedants out there, no meteorites do not strike the Earth, it is only after a meteor strikes that it becomes a meteorite). Why not look at what the successful vote actually meant and go to some trouble to explain the new carbon pricing system.

    So instead of reporting and analysing news we had a gossip round up and a bit of Nostradamus. This is what passes for quality journalism in Australia

  31. TheTruthHurts

    [“THETRUTHHURTS re: depopulation – you could always lead by example? be the change you want to see in the world? but no i guess, “the world needs less people. but i need to stick around to tell them that” “]

    Well I’m not talking mass murders or suicides, I’m talking about population growth controls and natural reductions.

    For example India’s population is expected to increase by 200 Million in the next 20 Years. Do we hear a murmur from the left though? A whisper about this incredible growth in population? Nope, lets talk about Australia’s 5% cut to our 1% emissions of our 22 Million people.

    China has put in place a one child policy which has helped slow population growth, yet places like India go unabated and not a word of worry from any of our “world leaders”.

    Even hear in Australia we have “big Australia”(that means big pollution, more land clearing, more greenhouse gases for the kids playing at home) from people like Kevin Rudd who would like to see Australia reach 40 Million by 2050. Yet will having more people in Australia make our lives better? Are people in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane happier now then they were 30 Years ago?

    The biggest moral challenge of our time will be population control. You think our cities are crowded now, you add another 3 Billion to the mix and find out what it’s gonna be like. As a nation and as a world we face the oppurtunity now to do something about population before it’s too late.

    But alas… the lefties want to talk about soda bubbles.

  32. Jimmy

    TTH-“For example India’s population is expected to increase by 200 Million in the next 20 Years” The qucikest way to slow population growth in these area’s is to increase their standard of living and education levels. So that being the case then we should increase our foreign aid to India and we shouldn’t be pushing for them to cut their carbon emmissions by the same amount as us until those increases have been made, is that your argument TTH?

    And what exactly is the “rights” policy on poulation growth? Wasn’t it the right who brought us “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country”

  33. Ninja toes

    @TTH
    Here is a useful link:
    http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/population

    It appears your dreaded “lefties” actually are talking about population issues, as well as climate. No one is suggesting there is only one major issue facing the planet. Some people prioritise one problem over all the others, but the truth is there is a lot to contend with in the coming century. Climate is a lot easier and safer to grapple as an issue than population, so it’s only natural it would come first.

  34. shepherdmarilyn

    Why are the pollsters asking the dimwits about a tax they won’t be paying?

  35. Suzanne Blake

    @ shepherdmarilyn

    They ARE paying it indirectly, dimwit

  36. TheTruthHurts

    [“So that being the case then we should increase our foreign aid to India and we shouldn’t be pushing for them to cut their carbon emmissions by the same amount as us until those increases have been made, is that your argument TTH?”]

    Why are the left obsessed with Carbon Emissions?

    Why not water pollution? Why not land clearing? Why not landfills?

    The world has a problem and it’s called the human population. Who was the person who said Carbon Pollution would be the lefts big moral crusade? Who cares, the bloody Earths gonna be so packed with people in 30 Years why would I worry about Carbon Pollution?

    [“And what exactly is the “rights” policy on poulation growth? Wasn’t it the right who brought us “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country””]

    This is true and I’m happy to admit the right have let down their guard, reason being is that business make a lot of money through population growth in Australia. That doesn’t mean that Australians are more wealthy, just companies. The richest countries per capita in the world have small populations.

    I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population. We can easily do this by drastic reductions in immigration as Australia has a flatline domestic population growth.

  37. Michael

    Isn’t it lovely to see the full gamut of Crikey FRUIT LOOPS out today.
    Al bare arsed and snotty nosed, running around with flowers in their hair, rose on their cheeks & smoke up their arse.
    You are a sight to behold brothers & sisters and as usual very consistent – not one sound argument amongst you.
    Fran Bailey step up please kid and bring some real crazy into this jolly forum.

  38. John Bennetts

    Jimmy: That increase in education levels better start with TTH before moving onto India. Address the biggest problem first.

    TTH: Population levels will come down in one of two ways.

    First: Education, physical security, social security (eg pensions) and access to reliable and plentiful energy are the tested and proven means by which to achieve voluntary ZPG. No statistical effect will be noticeable for the first 50 years or more, due to increasing life expectancy and decreasing infant morbidity.

    Second: War, pestilence, famine, depletion of resources (cf Flannery’s “The Future Eaters and Jarred Diamond’s “Collapse”). Effects will be noticeable, immediate and brutal.

    Clearly, you are advocating the second option, because otherwise, the global 9 billion mark is already locked in.

  39. Jimmy

    TTH – “I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population. ” And what do we do when we get to 25m? Is it one in one out from then on? Sorry Grandpa but I just got pregnant so you have about 9 months before we have to knock you off unless you leave the country.

    “Why are the left obsessed with Carbon Emissions?” My point was that in order to get there standard of living up they will have to keep growing their Carbon emmissions, an argument from the right is that why should we cut ours until they have cut theirs, but your argument is that we will cut their emmissions and many other things if we cut their population growth which is best achieved by increasing their standard of living. So my question still stands should we actively assit them to raise this standard of living and if not what should we do?

    SB – still waiting on that evidence!

  40. Jimmy

    SBH – “As to polls, today’s ABC reporting and analysis of last week’s events was a prime example of how unhelpful Australian media have become” Another example is how they select whichever part of the poll suits their “narrative”. In days gone by all that got reported was 2PP, now if the govt picks up in the 2PP as happenned today, they focus on the preferred labor leader or the primary vote or whatever other ridiculous thing was polled. The other way to go for them is to just focus on the number, with no mention of a reduction or increase.

    But apparently this is all very important.

  41. GocomSys

    I complimented Crikey earlier on another thread for not “headlining” latest opinion poll results by our five competing pollsters! I’ll take it back!
    Suggest:
    Why don’t we have one political “scorecard” poll provided by each individual pollster every weekday morning and several other opinion polls on various other subjects scattered during the week?
    Why not do it as a matter of cause together with the latest rate of the Aussie $ and other “business” and “finance” data?
    And while we are at it why not make it official and let the media and vested interests run the country? They are doing it already anyway.
    Are some of us still discussing whether climate change is real or not? Are we her in OZ totally deranged? It seems like it.
    By the way I enjoyed some of the enlightened comments earlier.
    Unfortunately lots of “dummies” are out again today and they spoiled it somewhat!

  42. David Allen

    TTH

    I have considerably sympathy with your views re population.

    You need to be corrected on one matter which you keep repeating though. It was George W. Bush’s propagandists who promulgated the use of the phrase ‘Climate Change’ rather than ‘Global Warming’.

    It wasn’t the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from “global warming” to “climate change”. (www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange)

    Luntz wrote that :
    “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’ … While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge,

  43. TheTruthHurts

    [“TTH – “I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population. ” And what do we do when we get to 25m? Is it one in one out from then on? Sorry Grandpa but I just got pregnant so you have about 9 months before we have to knock you off unless you leave the country.”]

    I’ve already explained Australia has a flat line internal population growth.

    You simply clamp down further on immigration to stabilise a 25 Mill limit. No knocking off of grandpa required, just some guts from our politicians.

    Not buying the line we need immigration to deal with an ageing population either, sounds like a C++ infinite loop error to me. Besides people can work up into their 60’s and even 70’s now, so having an “old population” might not be a bad thing.

  44. Michael

    @GOCOMSYS

    “Unfortunately lots of “dummies” are out again today and they spoiled it somewhat!”

    Knock, knock! Are you suggesting you’re not part of the “dummies” conglomerate?
    You can run but you can’t hide here brother.

  45. Suzanne Blake

    @ David Allen

    Thats right, the climate goes in cycles, had done so since the beginning of time.

    For example the sea level in Sydney Harbour in 1901-1910 was higher than it was 2001- 2010.

  46. Suzanne Blake

    @ Michael

    It is a pity you are not on this board daily……or hourly

  47. GocomSys

    SHEPHERDMARILYN posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange:
    You asked: “Why are the pollsters asking the dimwits about a tax they won’t be paying”?

    And a “dimwit” unasked responded with “they ARE paying it indirectly”.
    It’s good to know where one belongs and who one is, isn’t that so SB?

  48. Jimmy

    TTH – “I’ve already explained Australia has a flat line internal population growth.” YOu may have explained it but that doesn’t make it true, The below Info is from the ABS’

    “On 17 October 2011 at 03:58:10 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be: 22,735,553
    This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 31 March 2011 and assumes growth since then of:
    one births every 1 minute and 46 seconds,
    one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds ,
    a net gain of one international migration every 2 minutes and 44 seconds , leading to
    an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 31 seconds .”

    As uou can see there are roughly 2 births for every death at the moment, or every 3 minute 40 seconds our population increases by 1 person without immigration. How is this flat line?

  49. GocomSys

    SHEPHERDMARILYN posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange:
    You asked: “Why are the pollsters asking the dimwits about a tax they won’t be paying”?
    And a “dimwit” unasked responded with “they ARE paying it indirectly”.
    It’s good to know where one belongs and who one is, isn’t that so SB?

  50. GocomSys

    MICHAEL posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Whom the shoe fits Michael, why would you respond otherwise! Join SB and TTH our residents!

  51. David Allen

    SB, You said:
    “For example the sea level in Sydney Harbour in 1901-1910 was higher than it was 2001- 2010.”

    Reference please.

    Try (www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/)

    You’re supposed to be an auditor aren’t you. Must be an odd sort of mob you work for if all you have to provide to support your case is assertion.

    I think the evidence points more in the direction of you being coalition troll. I don’t propose engaging further with you.

  52. Jimmy

    TTH – “I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population” To paraphrase another anti carbon tax argument espoused by the right- Why should we act to reduce our population when it is such a small part of the global population?

  53. Suzanne Blake

    @ David Allen

    I said Sydney Harbour – Fort Denision to be exact.

    There are charts on other website that show that the level has stabilised last decade (2000 – 2010).

    The CSIRO are Government funded and produce what the Government wants, or people jobs get changed. Simple really to understand.

  54. Michael

    @GOCOMONO (sic)

    “Whom the shoe fits Michael, why would you respond otherwise! Join SB and TTH our residents!”

    Firstly we need to straighten out your grammar & I think between us all we can manage that; then we need to sort out your thought process & and there I’m afraid I’m of no help to you – I only have a Masters in Psychiatry and would need a Nobel Prize winning Doctorate to help you.

  55. GocomSys

    Common sense is often very hard to come by, I understand.

    Let me explain. This is not about left, right, centre, up, down and out party politics. This a the time to think what is “possible” under the current circumstances we find ourselves in. Look at the dysfunctional headline seeking media, the short-term profit or power oriented rent-seekers. The pressures on any government to work in the national interest in this environment is immense. Actually start to dislike the overused term “national interest”. Thinking outside the square if you like. Entrenched positioning get’s you nowhere.
    This is dealing with reality. Not about wishful thinking.
    We have a government (ALP, Greens, Independents) forced to negotiate outcomes. Not bad. We also are lumbered with an awfully incompetent LNP who purely for opposition’s sake are wiling to sacrifice all semblance of sanity. Pretty unhealthy I would think. As individuals we have to make decisions. Sit on our hands and let the country go down the drain or do the best we can to make the most of a given situation. Hate armchair critics. Signing off.

  56. Ron Paul 2012

    Meh who cares this is last weeks news. I found this most interesting:
    http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/new-work-project-finds-workers-want-casual-arrangement-not-union-help-for-flexibility/story-e6frfm9r-1226168726903

    New Work Project finds workers want casual arrangement, not union help From: news.com.au

    Survey asks how you would get flexibility at work
    Four in five workers wouldn’t ask a union for help
    Most want to work it out informally with the boss

    TRADE unions are a last choice when seeking greater flexibility at work, according to participants of the New Work Project.
    Results from news.com.au’s survey of more than 22,000 Australian workers reveal that just eight per cent of workers say a collective agreement sought through a union would be the best way to gain greater flexibility options in their jobs.

    What do you want at work? Take the New Work Project survey below.

    For the majority of the mostly white-collar respondents – 56 per cent – an informal arrangement with the boss was the first choice, more than twice as popular as individual contracts (20 per cent). The result suggests when it comes to flexibility, workers want to keep their options open.

    The popularity of the informal option lines up with national sentiments, according to Dr Anne Junor, Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Industrial Relations Research Centre at the Australian School of Business, who says she would expect most people to prefer a casual arrangement with the boss or one struck among colleagues.

    Finding flexibility with your workmates came in third in our survey, with 13 per cent of respondents naming it their most favoured option. “I don’t think you would make an individual contract regarding flexibility,” Dr Junor told news.com.au.

    THE NUMBERS: How does your industry stack up?
    “Informal arrangement with the boss” v “Collective agreement through a union”

    All industries – 56 per cent v 8 per cent
    Government and defence – 53 per cent v 18 per cent
    Accounting – 66 per cent v 4 per cent
    Office and admin – 53 per cent v 6 per cent
    Manufacturing and trade – 51 per cent v 13 per cent
    Mining and resources – 60 per cent v 6 per cent
    Healthcare and medical – 47 per cent v 12 per cent
    Banking and financial – 62 per cent v 7 per cent
    Education and training – 46 per cent v 18 per cent
    Information Technology – 59 per cent v 5 per cent
    Public sectors give high response for union help

    Those employed by the government or Defence made up the largest industry sector of survey respondents at over 10 per cent.

    They, and the Education & Training sectors, give the highest responses for trade union assistance with around 18 per cent of each choosing collective agreements. But it is still only their second choice.

    Manufacturing and trade workers also give a stronger-than-average response to union help. Thirteen per cent choose “collective agreements through a union” and the same proportion opt for “working it out among colleagues”.

    The lukewarm response to “individual contracts” may suggest very few people have the bargaining power to negotiate an individual contract, according to Dr Anne Junor.

    She has told news.com.au “unequal bargaining power” leads employees in some industries to feel too frightened to negotiate with their boss, meaning most contract or other workplace negotiations are initiated by the employer.

    Fair Work, or is it?

    Different industries have different awards and legislation covering them, which could have an impact on how an employee would choose to seek a more flexible deal, Dr Junor has said.

    Under the 2009 Fair Work Act, a worker has a legal right to request flexibility. A spokesman for the Fair Work Ombudsman has told news.com.au the Act ensures “employees and employers are entitled to initiate a request for an individual flexibility arrangement (IFA)”.

    Agreements can be varied “to meet the needs of employers and individual employees, while ensuring the employee is better-off-overall”.

    However, a spokeswoman from the Australian Council of Trade Unions has said the IFAs are unenforceable and employees have no right of appeal if their request is rejected.

    “Members regularly tell their unions this request is rejected by bosses, so until this right is enforceable, negotiating with an employer will not necessarily result in fair outcomes for workers,” she said.

    The number of trade union members has more than halved in the last two decades, dropping to just 18.3 per cent from 1990’s 40.5 per cent. But workers should give unions credit for the rights they enjoy, says the ACTU.

    “Workers have the right to negotiate with their boss because unions fought for this, along with the right to parental leave, superannuation and Medicare.”

    For the respondents to the New Work Project at least, while unions may have fought for their basic rights at work, flexibility is one thing they would like to keep unofficial and, well, flexible.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/new-work-project-finds-workers-want-casual-arrangement-not-union-help-for-flexibility/story-e6frfm9r-1226168726903#ixzz1b0ueWB9W

  57. Jimmy

    SB – “I said Sydney Harbour – Fort Denision to be exact.
    There are charts on other website that show that the level has stabilised last decade (2000 – 2010).
    The CSIRO are Government funded and produce what the Government wants, or people jobs get changed. ” So do you have some figures or reference for Fort Denison? And even if those figures are available who produces them? Is it some independent free thinker that hasn’t been bought by the govt who has lived at the ffort for the last 100 years?

    The CSIRO are one of the most respected scientific outfits in the world and even if the fort denison figures don’t reflect what has happenned globally which fiugre do you thinkis more relevant to a global problem?

    I am still waiting on evidence from my other post too, you really do struggle with evidence don’t you, I would hate to be audited by you, all accusations and no evidence.

  58. GocomSys

    MICHAEL posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:18 pm
    Sorry mate, I find that hard to believe. Your posts just don’t back that up! More like having to master your psychosis? Could that be it?

  59. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @SB,

    One factoid (giving you the benefit of the doubt that at one place sea level has done what you say) does nothing to cast doubt on the conclusions of mainstream science.

    And please explain how climate change research advanced so significantly in Australia under Howard and in the USA under Bush if the scientists just “produce what the Government wants”.

    Why I now think that all hope is lost is that most people (including the media) have now lost touch with reality.

    If Crikey ever had a sensible discussion we would in the end disagree – but we would disagree on VALUES.

    Instead all we get are people like SB who just say any nonsense to support their political team.

    I don’t think that there is any consistent rational world view for those who are climate change deniers, but the necessary parts of their world view include a scientific, political, and business conspiracy of such massive proportions that the world they see really is a very scary place.

  60. Suzanne Blake

    @ Michael Wilbur-Ham

    Governments will let bodies roll on, until they starting getting in the way politically.

    For example, the poor job the ACCC did cost its former leader his job, and now the new one is out swinging on Grocery in his first month. I dont know ifhe will be effective. But I hope he will

  61. Michael

    @GOCOMONO (sic)

    Wow! You’re gonna be fun!

  62. Jimmy

    SB – “Governments will let bodies roll on, until they starting getting in the way politically” SO you are saying that in 11 years of govt, with Howrds anti climate change stance conflicting so dramatically with recognised science andit becoming an increasingly costly issue for Howard politically he had no opportunity to get the CSIRO to change their research despite them being federally funded?

    Or is it more likely that scientists aren’t as easily bought as you make out?

    Still waiting on that evidence!!

  63. Microseris

    We didn’t like the GST either as I recall, but life went on and little changed aside from nearly everything going up 10%. At least with this cost many get compensated and we have the opportunity of reviewing our consumption and making changes where possible. As pointed out elsewhere the infrastructure costs being applied to electricity bills is having a far greater impact that the carbon tax will.

    As far as the suggestion it won’t make any difference globally, we all have to do our bit. As the worst in the world per capita, action in Oz is way overdue. My taxes by themselves wont make much difference to the country, but I’m pretty sure that argument won’t get up with the ATO.

    To those who don’t accept the science, do you have another planet we all can go to if your wrong? No, didn’t think so.

  64. Aphra

    Countries with one sort or another carbon tax –

    Finland (1990); Denmark (1992) – emission reduced by 9% by 2005; Sweden (1991); Norway (1991); Switzerland (2008); Costa Rica (1997) revenue to its national forest fund; India (2010); Ireland (2010) UK (2010). The Canadian province of Quebec, and the US city of Boulder have also implemented carbon taxes.
    (SBS World News, Factbox: 13 July 2011)

    Anecdotally, most whom I know who are agin the tax don’t really understand it or how it’s worked elsewhere, and most certainly don’t understand what an ETS is, towards which we’re supposed to be moving in a few years time.

  65. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    SB is partly right in that Government has effected the output of the CSIRO.

    It is know that CSIRO management has limited papers to only discussing science and not policy.
    (Which is why we are not hearing from CSIRO scientists that we are doing far too little to prevent climate change).

    Of course this political pressure is the other way from that proposed by SB, and as this is real life, we have heard about it.

    Remember that Labor policy is to only reduce emissions by 5% from 2000 levels, and this very little compared to the 40% cut on 1990 levels that would be Australia’s share to limit future temperature increase to 2 degrees.

    So Labor are not doing much to prevent climate change.

    And even more ridiculous, the 5% cut on 2000 levels is still Opposition policy. And pretty much every economist says that Abbott’s way of cutting emissions will cost more than the carbon tax.

    And note that if the carbon tax becomes an ETS, then everything done by any individual, business, local council, or state government will make no difference to Australia’s emissions. Under an ETS if you do something to reduce emissions, the certificates that you would have used are bought by someone else (and all you have achieved is provably lowering the price of the certificate).

  66. Suzanne Blake

    @ Michael Wilbur-Ham

    Yes same way the Labor Government (Sen Conroy) has gagged the telco who sign up for the NBN from criticising it or indeed from releaseing faster speeds….

    Just goes to show, Conroy is not about fater options or discussion, but hiw own warped spin on things to prevent criticising his massive waste.

  67. Peter Ormonde

    Dear Oh dear …. isn’t this a sorry discussion … having to wade through the personal opinions of compulsive liars and fantacists like Troofie, Blake and Michael to find the odd lucid moment? It reminds me of countless taxi rides I endured through the suburbs of Sydney with Alan Jones informed cab-drivers.

    Is this the best that tories have to offer? Is there really no one reading Crikey who can mount a decent argument in favour of Tony Abbott or the conservative pro-business blind optimism business as usual case? Do they have anyone that can actually spell? Or write in sentences? Apparently not.

    Crikey asserts it wants a robust debate – instead we are saddled with this grunting sludge. 93% of me wishes Crikey would do something about it.

    Which brings me back to the topic at hand … this silly what-we-all- think piece written by Mr Bowe… again.

    Let’s start with two questions:

    You mention “perceived unseemliness of the triumphalism”… I don’t see any questions or results on this in the market research survey you are commenting on … so who perceived this unseemliness Mr Bowe? Or is this simply your personal interpretation and opinion?

    Second question:

    You describe this Essential Poll as an “on-line survey of 1047 respondents”? How were these respondents selected?

    Please provide a link that will describe the basis on which these respondents were selected, the geographical and gender breakdown of respondents and their established voting patterns ie. the % of Labor, Liberal or Green etc voters surveyed. Without these basic facts, such market surveys are misleading and worse than useless.

    Bad enough having to read the deluded rantings of the resident trolls, but it is most disheartening when delusions are presented by Crikey as “facts” about “how we all think”.

  68. Suzanne Blake

    @ Peter Ormonde

    Find it very rich, that you always put people down whose views disagee with yours.

    But I guess, that you are ALP through and through. Just like Gillard and Rudd, blinkered, lost your way, rude, abrasive and not hearing the vast majority.

  69. GocomSys

    SB “你是一个傻丫头,你不知道你正在谈论什么。”

  70. GocomSys

    MICHAEL posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:41 pm
    “Simple Minds zijn gauw tevreden.”

  71. Suzanne Blake

    Thanks Gillard and Rudd

    For your foot in mouth on the 14 year old boy

    He is off to Kerobokan prison

    Bali boy set for spell in Kerobokan prison
    Tom Allard and Amilia Rosa
    October 17, 2011 – 4:23PM

    The NSW teenager arrested in Bali for allegedly buying cannabis faces at least a short stint in Kerobokan prison after police handed a brief of evidence to prosecutors that outlined three potential charges to be laid against him, including two that could have him put behind bars for years.

  72. John Bennetts

    @ SB, 5:48pm:

    Wottsup, SB? Run out of things to throw at Peter O?

    At least it can’t be true that I disagree with your views – the blind, including the wilfully blind, have by definition no sight and hence no view.

    Your opinions, including re sea levels at Fort Denison, are another thing entirely. Unsubstantiated opinions are always disagreeable, regardless the amount of noise and bluster employed in attempts to support them.

  73. Suzanne Blake

    @GoComSys

    I have worked it out, you are Kevin Rudd demonstrating your skills in Mandarin

    You are a silly girl, you do not know what you’re talking about
    你是一个傻丫头,你不知道你正在谈论什么

    That or you are his Mandarin tutor

  74. GocomSys

    Mea culpa. I am sorry I digressed. Peter Ormonde’s post got me back on track. Thanks!

  75. Peter Ormonde

    Hey sooz….

    Another top quality contribution …. are you actually saying that kids should be able to pop up to Bali and score a deal of dope without attracting any sort of police attention? How about the locals down on the Central Coast… them too? Can I expect to see you chaining yourself to a courthouse gate sometime soon when some snotty kid is dragged up on a possession charge?

    How curious that at the moment we have some 50 underaged Indonesian offenders in Australian prisons doing time for “people smuggling”.

    I’m truly amazed that the polite Indonesians didn’t just tell us to feck off. They are a very polite and civilised people.

    Oh no – our little Chaunticleer and Isolde are beyond reproach – certainly beyond the laws – of these awful swarthy races. Barbarians the lot of them.

  76. Michael

    @STORM’N OREMOND quote:
    “Crikey asserts it wants a robust debate – instead we are saddled with this grunting sludge. 93% of me wishes Crikey would do something about it.”
    That’s roughly the percentage of homosapiens who oppose the Carbon Tax.
    At last our Village Idiot is on the right end of a percentage.
    You’re doing good Oermondo!

  77. Suzanne Blake

    Well done Michael.

    @ Peter Ormonde

    I have never been to Bali and never will, norwill any of my kids. I am anti drugs big time.

    But Gillard and Rudd backed the Indonesians into a corner big time and they will not loose face. If they had been involved behind the scenes without grandstanding, the boy may well be home today.

  78. Michael

    And what’s more, I take umbrage at the way you people treat our (special) Sue Blake. Sure, she may be a little out there and bordering on the fringe but shit’ay, you gumnuts have Rundle, Liz, Ormondo, Stiff Nipples Fran, HamBone, Venise “the Taro Card Gal”,etc & you don’t here the privileged upper class members of Crikey insulting those morons.
    Do you?

  79. TheTruthHurts

    Suzanne… first the Rugby World Cup, now this 😉

    But seriously the Boy should do 6 months in Indo prison I reckon, should be a life lesson. Apparently he was going around bragging how he just bought this bag of weed. And what were the parents doing while all this was happening?

    Sick of stupid people doing stupid things, then expecting the government to bail their arses out. Let him do a stint rather than treat him like a hero I reckon.

    Anyways back to the carbon debate, if Labor care so much for the environment why are they sending shiploads of coal to India and China to burn tax free?

  80. Suzanne Blake

    @ Michael

    You forgot Marilyn. I don’t believe I am on any fringe, but don’t really care.

    @ TheTruthHurts

    I have several children, and they do stupid things. I dont believe that boy should be in that jail.

  81. Suzanne Blake

    @ Liz45

    Re-read section 114 of Constitution

  82. TheTruthHurts

    [“I have several children, and they do stupid things. I dont believe that boy should be in that jail.”]

    There is a difference between stupid and completely moronic.

    No doubt he knew Indo had tough drug laws, but he wanted to show off and flaunt the laws of Indonesia.

    Whenever I go to a foreign country I make sure I respect their laws, rules and customs…. as I would expect others who come here.

    I can assure you after a 6 month stint in an Indo jail(not the end of his life, but certainly a life lesson) he won’t go back and do it again. Probably be the best thing that ever happened to him in the long run.

  83. Michael

    @MY SUZIE BLAKE
    Sue we need solidarity here kid. This is trench warfare. It’s just you & me vs 7% of the cookoos nest. Stay vigilant & when Fran attacks give her a “nipple cripple”
    OK?
    Mwah!
    Tony, I need new recruits!!

  84. Michael

    @LIZ

    Oh shit! Here comes Liz & she’s on the piss!
    Moderators! Help!

  85. Michael

    @STORM’N OERMOND

    “Oh no – our little Chaunticleer and Isolde are beyond reproach – certainly beyond the laws – of these awful swarthy races.  Barbarians the lot of them”

    I believe that’s Chanticleer. But WTF, the great man’s thoughts are wasted on someone who derives his knowledge from SpungebobSquarepants!

  86. Peter Ormonde

    Michael:

    “you don’t here the privileged upper class members of Crikey insulting those morons…” It’s “hear” Michael. Please try harder.

    Also “Sponge Bob Squarepants”

    Suzanne, so you are anti-drug here but pro-drug in foreign swarthy countries? That right? Think carefully … yes you can phone a friend.

    Perhaps it was actually Gillard who sold him the dope.

    Strewth!

  87. skink

    how did this thread warp into talkback radio about teenage offenders?

    shouldn’t Suzanne and The Troofer be ringing Alan Jones with this stuff? Or are their numbers now on Alan’s ‘Do Not Answer’ list?

    and who sprinkled angel dust on their cornflakes this morning when they weren’t looking? that was a mean trick to play on the rest of us.

  88. Michael

    Oh fee f..ks sake Pedro stop being a girl. Let’s get down & dirty on politics.
    If you want a “spelling bee” take it up with the Crikey spellchecker, I believe she’s a fat ugly broad related to Fran Bailey’s sister’s aunt! Genetics – you can’t dodge it!

  89. Michael

    @SKUNK

    Huh? Were’d you come from?
    You’re chumpy.
    Welcome bro.
    Come here, give me a hug

  90. skink

    no, Michael, my user name is…

    …oh, I see what you did there.

    have they ever asked you to appear on the Footy Show? You and that Trevor Marmalade must be the two funniest blokes in the country. He could do sport, and you could do current affairs, and they could call it satire.

  91. Richard Wilson

    @MWH – I follow the reality of federal politics and would like to think i’m of some intelligence. Enough to realise that this is the most unstable period of government I’ve seen in my lifetime. Again, the only time in my living memory where there is a real chance a sitting government could be forced to the polls early by outside influences.

    Any claim that the current government situation is stable is farcical. This reign of Labor internally overthrew it’s own sitting democratically elected prime minister to win a cutthroat election. For a start that puts doubt in peoples minds. Add to that the fact there’s been rumblings now about changing prime ministers again, off their own back without consultation.. There’s Labor members stating publically that they will resign if this does happen, which would almost certainly force an early election. I’m failing to see stability here.

    That’s without going into the intricacies and blackmail involved with a Labor/Green/Independent alliance which is the knife edge that Government is balancing on.
    Gillards leadership is stable only because the powers to be in the caucus know that trying to change leaders in the current “stable” environment would be suicide for the Government. The stability of the whole Government relies on the greens being kept happy (good luck) and a rogue independent in Wilkie who has his list of demands that must be met. All that while trying to avoid another Craig Thomson like scandal and touching wood that a sitting member doesn’t fall seriously ill, or a number of other factors that would cause a by-election.

    Yes, I fail to see how intelligent people would fail to see how “stable” a position the Government in right now.

  92. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Richard Wilson,

    I agree that something could change and Labor could loose a motion of no confidence. So yes, things are less stable in the lower house than what we are used to.

    And it is obvious to all that whoever formed government after the last election would have to do deals, AND DELIVER ON THEM, to garner the support of those needed to give them the numbers.

    But I think there have been MANY governments in less stable positions because of the upper house. In fact having an upper house which can block legislation is fairly common.

    Look underneath the media circus and right-wing spin and I think things are fairly stable. Certainly much more stable than the media and right-wing-fanboys state.

    I agree that things may change, and that it is possible that Labor will loose the lower house. But I strongly disagree with the endless media spin (even from the ABC and the Age) that Labor are on a knife edge.

    At the moment there is nothing to suggest that Labor are in trouble in the lower house – for now things are stable.

  93. Michael

    @HAMBONE
    Oh my precious little imbecile. You’re always good for a postscript.
    I read your diatribe & it fills me with glee. Just as I start to believe that mainstreet Oz is wavering, you come along and categorically prove that the Left is just a lost soul wandering in a parallel wilderness.
    I have now come to realize that whilst you can all speak English you all think Latino with a touch of Zulu.
    We on the Right can help. But you’ll need to take out Medicare Private so we can get paid for your treatment.
    Be calm, we understand!

  94. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Michael,

    Clearly for you it is all just a circus where you can cheer on your side.

    And if you’re not going to provide any rational rebuttal, can’t you at least make your replies witty?

  95. Richard Wilson

    and I agree with that as well. There is a lot of hype about the stability of the current Government that fantasies about scenarios which I personally believe have next to no chance of actually occurring (such as Gillard being replaced). Unfortunately for left-wing fans, it sells papers… Just pointing out that for one of the most stable democracies in the world, this is a relatively unstable period and there are real possibilities of an early election that dont usually exist.

    I personally believe having an upper house that can and do block policy is a good thing that should add stability and instill confidence in the public. Upper houses in all States and Federally are intended to be a house of review, not just a rubber stamp, and I’m a firm believer of this regardless of whoever is in power. I think it adds integrity and actually conduces more reasonable debate and negotiation.

    The situation we’re in at the moment isn’t condusive to positive negotiations. I have grave doubts over whether we’d be having this carbon tax debate right now if Labor had of won a majority. They had no choice but to implement it.. much like the pokies reform that will have to go through. I dont think it’s healthy negotiation.. it’s called being over a barrel

  96. Michael

    @HAMBONE
    Shit bro!
    Thought I was.

  97. Michael

    @RICHARD WILSON
    STOP IT!
    It’s Monday.
    No common sense on Mondays!

  98. Peter Ormonde

    MWH…

    Sadly I’m afraid this is as witty as this bloke can manage … name-calling and demonstrating his charming attitudes to women and so forth . Best ignore him I think and just jump on to more reasonable folks’ posts.

    Speaking of which, I am not particularly concerned by the deal-making required in a minority Government. After all one would probably find that a majority of parliaments around the world operate this way routinely. And of course the Conservatives here have only ever held power in recent memory via that curiously subservient coalition arrangement that survives by shafting the bush and buying off ambitious buffoons.

    However last week’s apparent cabinet leak is a deeply damaging indication. The content of the reported discussion and particularly the position proposed by Bowen is pretty disgusting in itself, but more importantly the apparent leak suggests that someone in Cabinet is sufficiently self-interested to throw the Government into Opposition and come back in a couple of terms in a better personal position – possibly as leader, or at least with a leader who treats him/her with the respect and decency to which they feel entitled.

    It should not be too difficult to work out who would be thinking in this way and the Government’s response is quite obvious. Gillard is a serious operator and is more than capable of keeping her Cabinet tight and functional. This sort of self-interested sabotage should not be allowed to happen again. Whatever is necessary.

  99. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Richard,

    I agree that Labor only implemented the Carbon Tax because they were forced to by The Greens (yet so many on Crikey give Labor all the credit – as does the media including The Age).

    I’ve posted on Crikey over many years that for me the evidence is clear that Labor (Rudd /Gillard) never believed in taking any real action on climate change. The carbon tax is so little so late that even this proves my point.

    But whether or not you think that it is a good thing that The Greens forced Labor to at least make a start I guess depends on whether you accept the science of climate change or a denier.

  100. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Peter,

    I agree that the deal making, real discussion and negotiation in parliament is on the whole a good thing.

    What interesting times we live in where the supposedly left major party is trying to do something which is more right wing than the right side, gets blocked by the right, and ends up doing what The Greens want.

    Gillard is protesting so much that I can’t give her any credit for doing what I think is right.

    It will be interesting to see how Labor handle the leaks, but I doubt that it will lead to an early election.

  101. GocomSys

    Michael “Vänligen göra oss en tjänst, gå vilse!”

    The sooner the better!

  102. William Bowe

    Peter Ormonde:

    ‘You mention “perceived unseemliness of the triumphalism”… I don’t see any questions or results on this in the market research survey you are commenting on … so who perceived this unseemliness Mr Bowe? Or is this simply your personal interpretation and opinion?’

    A bunch of conservative pundits perceived it. My point was that the poll provides no evidence either that such a perception extends any further, or if it does that it’s had any impact on opinion of the policy itself. If this article appears to go further than that, which I’m not sure that it does (though I personally wouldn’t have said “that’s the message in new polling from Essential Research”), it’s because of changes that were made to my copy by higher-ups. Not that I’m bothered about this, I should stress.

    As for your other question, a note on Essential’s methodology is featured at the end of its own release of the figures, just like it was last week, and just like it will be when you ask exactly the same thing again next week.

  103. Richard Wilson

    @MWH – I’m a climate change believer.. I’m also a skeptic though of the real impact of climate change. If you look back through history there’s no doubt the climate changes over long periods and the rate of our pollution will be speeding up this cycle of ‘global warming’. I’m also a believer that huge periods of ‘global cooling’ that have been seen in the past weren’t caused by dinosaurs burning too much firewood or the medieval knights burning too much coal. Personally i’d like to see more research and debate on the bigger picture but as you said, a start is better than nothing and there’s no doubt something has to be done at some point.

    For me it’s more a matter of timing of the introduction of this. There’s also the fact that we’re in a hung parliament… and knowing this tax would be implemented before the election would in all likelihood have completely changed the result of the last election. I think everyone has a right to feel hard done by regardless of whether you’re pro climate change action now or not. If Labor had won by a landslide it would be easier to swallow. They’re in power on the premise that this would not be introduced and a year in it’s been passed through the lower house.

    Time heals all wounds.. we’ll have to wait and see whether two years is enough for this to heal before the next election

  104. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Richard – Climate has changed many times in the history of earth, and for lots or different reasons. What is different now is that we know why the climate is changing, it is within our power to prevent it, and we have a reasonable idea of what will happen when the climate does change.

    If we look at the predictions of mainstream science, the big question is whether these are likely to be right, or whether their are reason that things might be a bit less bad than predicated, or reasons for thinking that things might be worse than predicted.

    Because of the immense pressure on the scientist to be able to justify their predictions, the IPCC reports, in my opinion, have been very conservative. Most importantly the very high impact but poorly understood flipping points have not been included in the IPCC reports. This is my main reason for thinking that the IPCC predictions are far too conservative.

    I’m not aware of any rational reasons for thinking that the IPCC (and thus Garnut etc) predictions are likely to overestimate the impact of climate change.

    Time will not heal the wound we are inflicting on future generations with climate change. The way we are going a rise of about 2 degrees by 2100 is very likely, with an eventual rise of 5 degrees being possible.

    Other issues (such as over use of environmental resources and over-population) will only make things worse.

    A doubt that future generations will give any consideration to the political circus which most on Crikey follow. But they will wonder why we who knew what would happen did next to nothing to prevent it.

  105. Oscar Jones

    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    The majority does make the point of view correct in Australia. Its doesn’t in a Community Country, I agree, but it does in Australia.

    Majority is how democracys run. Sorry to let you down.

    Quite right SB and as you know Labor received more votes than any other party at the last election and now have a majority vote in the House of Reps with their coalition with the Independents as opposed to the coalition of Liberals and Nats.

  106. Oscar Jones

    As for crikey running an article about a poll with under 2000 people in a country of 22 Million- I find it an insult to our intelligence whatever those asked said.

  107. AaronH

    RE: OSCAR JONES Link

    This isn’t a direct democracy. It is a representative one.

    We elect the leaders we think can do the best job, regardless of whether we agree with their individual positions. At times, they have to do unpopular things. As long as their decisions prove themselves by the time the election rolls around, they are politically justified.

    Direct democracy isn’t feasible because the right decision is often unpopular. And it isn’t politically justified either. It is when a politician listens *too much* to the people that they lose all credibility (as we have seen by the focus-group and poll driven Labor politicians lately).

  108. Suzanne Blake

    @ Oscar Jones

    “as you know Labor received more votes than any other party at the last election”

    WRONG

    Labor 4,711,383 38.0%
    LNP 5,370, 296 43.3%

  109. GocomSys

    “WE don’t like the carbon tax”!

    WE have been told over and over by the trash media and the pollsters WE don’t like it and we don’t want it and we don’t understand it and the sky will fall in! And if the sky doesn’t fall in it will be repealed anyway! And 5% reduction is not enough to effect “climate change”, so why introduce it. And “global warming” is crap anyway, so why worry about it! And other countries in the world are not doing anything and why should we be the first even if we are not? And by the way jobs will be lost, we all go hungry and it was introduced by a bad, bad, bad government.
    And it’s all Juliar’s fault and Tony will fix it.

    Having been bombarded with this nonsense seemingly forever ESSENTIAL comes along and asks these people what they think about a carbon tax. The surprising outcome: WE don’t like the carbon tax.

    Now WILLIAM BOWE and others “headlining” these incredibly newsworthy findings. Stereotypes are re-enforced and everybody can be proud of themselves.

  110. Peter Ormonde

    William Bowe:

    Thanks for the reply.

    What a pity you didn’t write something along those lines regarding that view, ie attributing the source of this perceived unseemly triumphalism to conservative pundits, perhaps even naming one. Here it is just presented as some statement of fact. This often happens when polls are being reported doesn’t it … the views of pundits are mistaken for facts?

    Thanks for the link to Essential’s report. As you realise from Crikey posts elsewhere on the Essential polls I am actually quite well aware of their methodology.

    Essential themselves have some difficulties explaining where their respondents actually come from and a few other relevant characteristics. Even to a casual observer the limitations and flaws in this methodology are obvious and important, not the least being that 7,000 surveys are emailed out to selected group from a pool of over 100,000 consumers, and this generates some 1,000 replies – that is, the respondents are self-selecting. This is a fatal flaw. There are others.

    My point is that when you are writing up these results, you should explain to people how these results are are obtained and from whom – or provide a link to such an explanation. This would not take up much valuable Crikey space.

    This limitations are probably OK in market research about shampoo but extremely significant when making political prognostications or extrapolating notions about “how we think”… this is actually how people with internet access – enrolled consumers – think, at least the 1 in 7 that bothered to reply to the survey. That would be a start.

    The point is that if Crikey is to avoid the breathless reports that characterise the mainstream meeja’s latest commissioned market research … let’s call it what it is: in-house fabricated “news”… then it requires a slightly more sober and analytical approach – even, dare I say, critical. It requires an approach that allows Crikey’s readers to make an informed and critical assessment of the value of such “facts”… not just a breathless announcement of the results as if it was a reflection of general public opinion. That it is not. None of them are.

    You are a smart enough fella to be able to discuss these limitations and constraints with your readers and leave them better informed about the limitations of these quick and dirty sampling exercises and those exciting the pundits of the mainstream meeja.

    In my view that is what an independent journal like Crikey should be doing – not just joining in the heaving worship of this poll fetish. Show your readers how to spot the flaws in polling and the limitations provided by such techniques. You owe them that much.

  111. SBH

    Suzanne, You make it so easy.

    As an auditor and a fan of democracy this is a basic mistake you should avoid but your inherent mendacious bent has got the better of you.

    Here’s the results in order of primary votes:
    ALP – 4,711,363
    Libs – 3,777,383
    LNP of Qld – 1,130,525
    Greens – 1,458,998
    Nats – 462,387

    So you’re wrong and Oscar is right. But as you know, first preferences are not how we decide governments in this country so here’s the 2PP figures.

    ALP – 6,216,445
    Lib – 6,185,918

    So you’re still wrong. And you have the hide to call shepherdmarilyn a dimwit

  112. Peter Ormonde

    Suzanne …

    2PP final numbers

    Australian Labor Party 6,216,445 50.12
    Liberal/National Coalition 6,185,918 49.88

    Or party specific:

    Australian Labor Party 4,711,363 37.99

    Liberal Party of Australia 3,777,383 30.46
    Liberal National Party (QLD) 1,130,525 9.12
    National Party of Australia 419,286 3.43
    Country Liberal Party (NT) 38,335 0.31
    Australian Greens 1,458,998 11.76
    National Party (WA)[nb 1] 43,101 0.34
    Independents 312,496 2.52
    Other 510,876 4.11

    So you see the Liberal Party got only 30.46% … it’s only because of their coalition arrangement with the subservient graspers of the National Party et al that the conservative vote begins to look respectable … but you would want to counting them at all would you … otherwise you’d need to count the Greens and independents towards the ALP and you end up with the top set of numbers..

    See the conservatives actually lost the last election. Please explain that to Tony Abbott will you?

  113. David Allen

    TTH

    You wrote, “Anyways back to the carbon debate, if Labor care so much for the environment why are they sending shiploads of coal to India and China to burn tax free?”

    Which, once again, requires correction.

    India has had a coal tax since 2010. See for instance:
    (www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-21/india-coal-tax-may-be-used-to-fund-transmission-lines-for-renewable-plants.html)

    And even “The Australian” has reported on China’s planned national ETS.
    (www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/polluted-china-plans-carbon-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6so-1226096969756)

    Or from the horse’s mouth, as it were:
    (www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-07/22/content_11033249.htm)

    How about actually checking that the purported ‘facts’ you claim have some basis in reality.

  114. Peter Ormonde

    David,

    Facts – ouch! The name he has chosen says it all really – it’s because the truth really does hurt apparently. So he avoids it at all costs and creates his own.

    Thanks for the useful links.

  115. Suzanne Blake

    @ Peter Ormonde

    You have just demonstrated you are a complete liar.

    The Liberals / Nationals are one party, they sit in the same party room, same shadow cabinet, etc

    The Labor Party, Independants and Greens dont.

    Simple as that

    The person said PRIMARY vote were higher for Labor, they were wrong

    How many oranges in your orchid? Do you count the apples in with them as well?

  116. Suzanne Blake

    @ SBH

    Why do they call it a Coalition then. Cause it is

  117. SBH

    oh you dope – here’s a definition for you:

    “The Coalition in Australian politics refers to a group of centre-right parties that has existed in the form of a coalition agreement (on and off) since 1922. The Coalition partners are the Liberal Party of Australia (or its predecessors before 1945) and the National Party of Australia (known as the Australian Country Party from 1921 to 1975 and the National Country Party of Australia from 1975 to 1982).”

    Note the emphasis on a “GROUP” even a dope like you must understand groups are made up of individuals. Your complete failure to understand even basic facts of your democracy is simply shocking. The Libs and the Nats are two separate parties. I could go on but why don’t you just ring them and ask.

    And you sell services to people?? Lucky your job requires neither basic numeracy, ability to read reports and spreadsheets and a basic level of honesty because you lack all three.

    Aren’t you embarrassed to keep making such primary school level mistakes?

  118. Bobalot

    Labor won the 2PP and governs. Howard lost the 2PP and the PRIMARY VOTE in 1998 and still governed. I never saw Labor put up a fraction of the howling and whining I have seen from Coalition supporters about this. I never saw any of this “legitimacy to govern” rubbish either.

    This is called parliamentary democracy. It’s amazing how short memories people like Suzanne Blake have. It appears that conservatives in this country have a born to rule attitude.

  119. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jimmy

    “SBH – “As to polls, today’s ABC reporting and analysis of last week’s events was a prime example of how unhelpful Australian media have become” Another example is how they select whichever part of the poll suits their “narrative”. In days gone by all that got reported was 2PP, now if the govt picks up in the 2PP as happenned today, they focus on the preferred labor leader or the primary vote or whatever other ridiculous thing was polled. The other way to go for them is to just focus on the number, with no mention of a reduction or increase.”

    Its bease all the media, reap all, knows Gillard is Dead Women Walking, and her downfall is expected.

  120. Peter Ormonde

    William Bowe ….

    A request:

    I’ve just spent the last half hour trying to understand exactly what Essential is doing with its sampling.

    First up your report of their findings starts out with this:

    “Conducted between Wednesday and Sunday, the online survey of 1047 respondents shows 39% supporting the carbon tax against 53% opposed.”

    yet in the Essential appendix to its report the sample size is given as 1905.

    Where did the rest of the sample go?

    Now the actual questions asked in Essential’s survey circular about “voting intention” were the following:

    Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote?

    Q. If “don’t know”? Well which party are you currently leaning to?

    And then to confound me even further more include this note after showing a table of intended voting intentions:

    NB. The data in the above tables comprise 2 week averages derived from the first preference/leaning to voting questions. Respondents
    who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results. The two party preferred estimate is calculated by distributing the votes of the other
    parties according to their preferences at the 2010 election.

    Could you please explain to us what this means and how it would affect the reported result? What did Essential tell you when you asked?

    Yours in confusion,

    Peter

  121. Michael

    @STORM’N OREMONDO

    I hate arguing with you in any way resembling rational discourse cause your mindset demands conformity.
    But having read your longwinded rant to Bill Bowe the question begs asking. Here goes :when Australians bring out their nail studded baseball bats & bash the life out of Labor, will that count, in your simple mind, as a fair poll, or will you consider that rigged also?
    Hmmm? Pray tell princess.

  122. Peter Ormonde

    Michael,

    Please feel entirely free not to read any of my long-winded rants in the future. As I won’t be reading your offensive adolescent outbursts.

    Pedantry alert!!!!!

    To the other folks out there… here we have a new permutation on that favourite TV journalist cliche that something “begs the question”… which they think means that the something requires or suggests a following question. So we get terrific insightful stuff like “Johnno’s rumoured groin injury begs the question of who will be called in to take over if he’s not up to the job on Friday night”.

    Begging the question is actually a technical term used in debate and argument. It means to dance around the central issue like a gaggle of pleading beggars in the street.

    I’m not sure how this will help Johnno come Friday night, but it is interesting to watch how, in the right hands, the accursed interweb helps to even further corrupt the already decayed language what we was taught to speak, and the meanings we once attached to it. The post meaning language. Snorts and grunts.

  123. Michael

    @OERMONDO

    Pederast Alert!!!!!!!!!

  124. SBH

    You know Suzanne, I find it sad and somewhat scary the way your political understanding is formed. You get basic facts completely wrong, can’t understand numbers as presented by government reports, don’t understand the political entities that represent you, get your ‘information’ from god knows where and uncritically reguritate anything you hear that fits your prejudice. As for things like this “Its bease all the media, reap all, ” I cannot even guess what that was supposed to mean.

    I’ve said it before but don’t you think you should fufil your basic duty as a citizen and get informed first? I mean, at least find out which parties stand for election in this country.

  125. Michael

    @SBH

    The fact is Suzy nails it every time. She may not be as literate as some of our Criket gumnuts but she exhibits far more intelligence & honesty than the vast majority of self absorbed, self flagellating Lefties in this chumpy forum.
    Look at the way you morons try to manipulate poll numbers, statistics, global warming bullshit, etc. You’re a disgrace to your ideological illigitamate daddy Karl Marx.
    But Sue knows well that your darkest years are coming, year after year after year of Tory Govts, Local, State & Federal.
    All of your political correctness swept into an abyss.

  126. TheTruthHurts

    [“Labor won the 2PP and governs. Howard lost the 2PP and the PRIMARY VOTE in 1998 and still governed. I never saw Labor put up a fraction of the howling and whining I have seen from Coalition supporters about this. I never saw any of this “legitimacy to govern” rubbish either.”]

    Actually the Labor hacks have been p1ssing and moaning about the Libs “stealing” the 2001 election and are still whining about “Children Overboard” even now despite no one but Labor hacks caring. Get over your 2001 election loss already, you guys lost fair and square.

    As to Gillard, she gave a roll-gold guarantee if we voted for her she’d make sure there was no carbon tax. Instead she did the exact opposite of her guarantee and introduced one anyways.

    No mandate, NEW election.

  127. Suzanne Blake

    @ TheTruthHurts

    Its worse. Not only did Gillard lie days before the 2010 election, she instructed Treasury to work on a Carbon Tax weeks after forming Government with Brown and the independants.

  128. SBH

    thanks Michael, another worthwhile contribution.

    truthie, it’s ‘rolled-gold’ and despite common usage actually refers to a lesser product than pure gold.

  129. Policeman MacCruiskeen

    Michael (also Troofie and Suzanne Blake): I don’t believe that you are all acting in your posts on the basis of a strategised approach. I can’t see the hand of a coherent socio-political theory in your writings. There is, however, strong enough similarity between your individual, abusive outbursts for me to argue that there is a commonality fit for theorisation. I don’t believe that it is your intention, but it certainly is the effect, of your abusive tantrums to corrode the conditions for civil public discussion and productive disagreement.

    This is important. Liberal democratic societies require rules for civility in politics. You ought to be aware that Aristotle defined politics as rules for negotiating how we are to ‘live together’. In other terms we might now say politics is more than merely what goes on in parliaments – it is the stuff of negotiating difference between individuals where we reside, with whom we reside, at work and so on. Doing this with respect demands citizens fit for the task of treating others with respect who are educated in the ways of civil discussion.

    It is clear that you are incapable of doing so. Worse, it is your intention to derail and undermine the civil conversation of others by heckling meaninglessly and witlessly from the bleachers.

    Civility is a refined state of ethical and moral capacity. Mary Midgley described humans as ‘the ethical ape’ arguing that a capacity for moral consideration of others is a necessary condition of human evolutionary development. I have long thought that the absence of such a capacity in individuals indicates inadequate social and individual development. In other words a person’s willingness to engage in witless forms of name calling and abuse is evidence of that person’s not fully developed human character. Humanity, therefore, is far more than mere biology; it depends for its full expression on a capacity to embed and embody what Alasdair Macintyre called modern virtues in civil, political discussion. Those virtues in a liberal democracy depend on respect without which we can say, following Midgley, that the individual is not truly human. Applying this to Macintyre we conclude that the disrespectful public discussant is not fit to participate because he or she is not fully human.

    In the case of the three of you I conclude that you are not fit to be in the same room as the discussants.

    There is a global move to incivility in discussion the natural endpoint of which is the sort of intolerance of difference that leads lunatics like Brevik to mass killings. Incivility corrodes the conditions for peaceful and decent social life. It has its roots in a pathological hyper-individualism that denies essential human sociality and manifests itself in an incapacity to engage with others except in terms that are abusive. This is what unites you three, Bolt, the would be Antipodean Limbaugh, Jones and others and fuels the sub-human thinking of people who can only resolve their conflicted feelings, their frustrations and their rage at their alienation from the mass of others by becoming a shooter.

    Short: stay in the pig pen boyo because you’re an uncouth gobshite.

  130. Peter Ormonde

    Yeah – wot ‘e sed!!!

  131. Suzanne Blake

    @Policeman MacCruiskeen

    Everyone in Australia is entitled to think and comment as they wish. I happen to know that my overall concerns, opinions and comments are by far and away mainstream. No on Crickey, but out there in voter land.

    Not since 1975 and Whitlam has there been more anger with the Federal Labor Government. If you don’t see that, that is not my problem.

  132. Archer

    “Gillard wants to increase costs for Australian businesses. So that make us uncompetitive.” This isn’t evidence SB, where are the numbers, where is the qualified opinion? Who are we competing against, which businesses will be effected?

    I hope I have understood this correctly, you want proof of the detriment expected by the introduction of the Carbon Tax.

    I have another take.

    I visited the Greens website. It is a mass of ideological bylines. Not what you’d call policy.

    Show me the figures for renewable energy employment. Both for new jobs and cross training for the people working in current energy sectors.

    Show me the figures for solar technology development, efficiency of output and viability. I heard this guy last night on Q&A say he believes we should run an undersea cable from northern Australia to PNG or Asia, build a huge solar station in Australia and sell them electricity. COST IT!

    Show me the figures for geothermal power. Geodynamics already flopped once, and that was with a $90million grant from Rudd. We won’t mention that Flannery is a major share holder and that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.

    Show me the figures for tidal power.

    Show me the figures for wind power. Costs, efficiency, viability, onshore or offshore manufacturing. E.g will Vestas or G.E build the generators or will they be built in Australia.

    Show me the figures for on going commitment to renewable energy research and the costs to tax payers through subsidies, while Australians struggle through the transition by the forced reduction in the use of fossil fuel. The only source of energy we know works, other than nuclear and we know we don’t want to go there, do we.

    The Greens love to make all sweeping statements but when you try to nail them on costing………it’s one of those things capitalists do.

  133. Suzanne Blake

    @ Archer

    I don’t have individual company costs that I can release here, but I speak to over 100 Australian companies on a continued basis. Every one of them will be hit with increased costs when the Carbon Tax comes in. Can’t you see that, its faily obvious.

    We compete against other nations, the vast majority of which have no carbon tax and no plans. These overseas companies have a lower cost base, cause they are not paying a Carbon Tax or having one passed onto them by the ‘500 polluters’.

    EVERY business in Australia will face higher cost with this tax.

  134. Policeman MacCruiskeen

    All dem noice woids an ajektives jest went sailing away over the dandruff dinnit? Little woids, pitchers wood ‘elp, sum grunts ‘n snorts. There is anger ollroit but dat’s all yez’ve got. Dat’s da point. If oi wanted pig flatulence over reasoned discssion with facts and oideas oi’d go downwind o’ Micheal’s sty and inhale. Yez’r nuthin’ but inchoate rage, bad spellin’ and a belief that syntax is some new Gillard plot. We’ve special treatment for tha loiks o’ you pro-drug do gooders here on Mutton Bird Island – we lock everyone up for even talking about drugs here whether they are whitefellas or not. The Good Nuns of Holy Regret sort ’em roit out.

  135. SBH

    Tony Abbott reckons there’s 2 million small businesses in Australia. That would mean Suzanne can speak for (not sure why she thinks she’s their representative but with her understanding of democracy, anything’s possible) 0.00005% of businesses about the cost of a carbon tax.

    Maccruisen, I’ve never liked the police very much but you are a funny fellow.

  136. Archer

    @Suzanne Blake

    You’ll have to excuse me. I’m not questioning you or your concerns. My post did not begin with clarity.

    My critique is of The Greens website. As I said, full of by lines and ideals but missing rational, practical solutions and void of costings.

    I want to hear more than fossil fuel workers will be absorbed into new renewable energy jobs. I want to see figures. As do the workers.

  137. Suzanne Blake

    @ Archer

    Thanks

  138. TheTruthHurts

    Everything looks great in bold, but I think I will fix it now.

    In 3… 2… 1…

    Is it fixed now?

  139. Michael

    @POLICEMAN MACCRUISKEEN said & I quote:

    “Michael (also Troofie and Suzanne Blake): I don’t believe that I’m up to your strategised approach, quite frankly I consider myself an idiot & there’re really isn’t much I can do about that. Mum told me as much at the age of 3 & she knows lots of wise things picked up on the street selling her fanny for dope, poor thing (one sec while I blow my nose). Dad unfortunately taught me nuffen cause I don’t know who he is but I know he had acne cause I’m a mess.

    Back to the topic, I can’t see the hand of a coherent socio-political theory in your writings cause I never learnt how to read or roit, hence my profession. You only need to count fold up stuff in my profession. There is, however, strong enough similarity between your individual, clever outbursts for me to realise that I’m in the right profession, perhaps batting a little above me average but certainly making enough now to subscribe to Crikey and provide me mum with antibiotics when she gets that dreaded clap she picks up every now & then. I don’t believe that it is your intention to offend me, but I understand I deserve your abusive tantrums that corrode the conditions for civil public discussion and productive disagreement. Please don’t give up on me.

    This is important. Liberal democratic societies require rules for civility in politics, and since my background excludes me from properly participating, I would ask that you continue to express your intelligent well thought out views which I am clearly incapable of expressing. ( just one sec I need to do a crap) .

    I’m back! You ought to be aware that Aristotle defined politics as rules for negotiating how we are to ‘live together’. In other terms we might now say politics is more than merely what goes on in parliaments – it is the stuff of negotiating difference between individuals where we reside, with whom we reside, at work and so on – sorry I haven’t a clue what that means, think I snorted too much of that fluffy white stuff ha ha ha ha ha ha ha – shit I can’t stop laughing, where was I??

    Ah yes, it is clear that you are incapable of doing so. Worse, it is your intention to derail and undermine the civil conversation of others by heckling meaninglessly and witlessly from the bleachers – I’m sorry how did I get on this subject, help!

    What’s my name? who am I? mum!!!!”

  140. Michael

    Yes Yes You’ve all read it today, but do so again, Nicki Savva, Australia’s best journalist absolutely nails it!!

    Fall from grace began with a coup

    by: Niki Savva

    From the Australian (18.10.11)

    WHEN she looks back over her career, will Julia Gillard be able to pinpoint a single moment, or a single issue, or a particular characteristic that, if she could have changed, she would and prevented it all unravelling? Anecdotal evidence and private polling suggests the dislike of her is so extensive, so entrenched and so personal that choosing a particular time or policy or trait is impossible. People doubt her competence, question her trustworthiness, distrust her values and mock her presentation.
    She said she wouldn’t challenge, then she disposed of a first-term prime minister; she said she would never introduce a carbon tax, then she did; she said she would never tolerate offshore processing, now she says you can’t run a decent border protection policy without it and will operate onshore processing after putting her party through hell to arrive at a place she doesn’t want to be.
    Professionals who have been around politics for a long time, and are normally reluctant to never say never, are convinced, despite any marginal improvements in the polls, that the antipathy is so embedded she will never be able to recover.
    Proof of that is the leaking against her now by her own ministers, supposedly rock solidly behind her. Well, they are, but with knives sharpened.
    The reasons for the public’s hostility to the Prime Minister go back to the very beginning, the night the factional boys told her she had to do it then and there, kill Kevin and rescue them all from the tyranny and dysfunction. How were they to know, or she for that matter, that while the tyranny would end, the dysfunction would continue, and people would find it hard to forgive the treachery?
    She could have said no, that despite his flaws and the government’s poor polling, it was still retrievable and that Rudd had earned the right to fight the next election as prime minister and what she, as his deputy and they as his colleagues had to do was tell him upfront that he had to fix himself and fast.
    Ego – she could not admit she wasn’t ready – the romance of the night, the absolute conviction that she could do better and fear that if she refused the opportunity might not present itself again (look at what happened to Peter Costello) induced her to take on a job she was ill-equipped to perform.
    Having said yes when she should have said no, it was incumbent on her to prove she was better in every way. Instead she made a succession of mistakes and inexplicably continued to repeat them.
    In the middle of an election she called too soon, and as her campaign fell apart, thanks partly to the Ruddites leaking stories that impugned her integrity and splattered her inchoate reputation, people began questioning who she was and what she stood for.
    She responded not with principles or a recitation of beliefs but by promising to reveal the real Julia. She never did, or if she has could we please have the other one? There have been so many poorly handled issues, each one exemplifying her worst characteristics: her stubbornness, her inability to admit a mistake or concede a point, her lack of judgment and her propensity to twist facts into pretzels.
    She could have been forgiven, or other misdemeanours excused, such as speaking in that soporific way, as if people are inattentive children she dare not slap, if she had at critical times displayed competence and astute political judgment. The two issues that have inflicted the most damage and best – or rather worst – displayed her inconsistencies and poor judgment are the carbon tax and asylum-seekers.
    Even if it turns out to be the best carbon tax in the world she will not be forgiven the circumstances that led to its creation.
    She announced the carbon tax surrounded by Greens and independents. They did not provide ballast; instead, it looked like propulsion. From the outset she argued with people who accused her of breaking her word. For too long she insisted she was only doing what she said all along she would do: put a price on carbon. Over and over they played her own words back at her: “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”
    Finally she struck on a more acceptable explanation: she had meant it when she said it but the changed circumstances compelled her to change, too. It came too late and without a hint of regret or apology. On top of that, whether because of tone or content, neither she nor her ministers has been able to sell it.
    Insiders are fond of saying the government has a communications problem. All that means is they are incapable of persuading people. Either they can’t find the right words, their arguments are feeble or people have stopped listening. The carbon tax lost the support of the battlers, and the asylum-seeker issue cost her the support of the elites as well.
    After condemning offshore processing for years, Gillard began her prime ministership with a few tweets of the dog whistle, announcing she wanted to process asylum-seekers in East Timor. It went pear-shaped almost immediately, and her first defence – stop me if this sounds familiar – was that she hadn’t even mentioned East Timor.
    She had spoken to the President instead of the Prime Minister, then clung to it for months even though it was obviously dead. In between she tried and failed to reopen Manus Island.
    She vowed she would never send refugees to a country that had not signed the UN convention on refugees, then – when she should have been selling the budget – announced a half-cooked deal with Malaysia, which is not a signatory to the convention.
    After it was rejected by the High Court she did something prime ministers should never do and criticised the Chief Justice.
    At any number of points, particularly after that, then during the negotiations with Tony Abbott to get fresh legislation passed, she could have opted for Nauru, now a signatory to the convention. Even during that splintering cabinet meeting on Thursday it was not too late. If Abbott had still said no, he would have rightly been condemned and she would have had the upper hand. If he had said yes and the boats stopped, the story would have disappeared, leaving the initial embarrassment a small price to pay. If they did not stop, she could say: I told you so.
    She would have been better off than she is, humiliated and saddled with a policy she admits will not work. While she was out there blaming Abbott, her backbenchers and frontbenchers were out there blaming her. Now, even if she could change, it’s too late. She will have a lot of time to think about where it all went wrong.

  141. Policeman MacCruiskeen

    Oh dear oh dear Micheal. My point proven by you in spades. Incapable of originality by any means and such a total sub-literate as to not even have the wit to google the name Policeman MacCruiskeen. It is yourself, boyo, who brought up excrement, maternal care and dubious parentage which is as clear a case of projection as I’ve ever seen.

  142. Policeman MacCruiskeen

    PS: you wanted i-l-l-e-g-i-t-i-m-a-t-e.

    Down here we just call them bastards.

  143. SBH

    ‘Australias best journalist’? oh geez louise – who’s second Virginia Trioli?

  144. Michael

    @POLICEMAN MACCRUISKEEN

    Just trying to help by letting you know what you say when you say it.
    In it’s mildest form ‘turrets’, which you clearly have, exhibits itself in free flowing diatribe, in your case well punctuated, that knows no end. Literally, the pen must be ripped out of the clutches of the sufferer. In you case I suspect it’s mum after she returns from William St.

  145. Policeman MacCruiskeen

    Michael: ‘it’s’ is a foreshortening of ‘it is’. The apostrophe does not signify that ‘it’ is in possession of a thing or quality; for that you need ‘its’. All too confusing? You see, to communicate complex ideas, and to comprehend them, you need a sophisticated grasp of your native tongue. You just don’t cut it. You are a facile, semi-educated annoyance; Lawson would have you as ‘a tick’ in classic Australian parlance.

    I’ve met plenty of blokes like you in my time and say that you wouldn’t have the wherewithal to be a bouncer at a ball room dance contest. Nor would you speak in person, say at a public meeting, the way you do on the netz for fear of being given the bum’s rush and some free orthodontic treatment on the way out the door. Cowards and abusers like you use the netz for vituperation rather than conversation because they can get away with it and, most of all, because they are indeed incapable of civil dialogue.

    Me, I’m the sort of bloke who used to hurl ignorant twerps like you out of peaceful meetings because I enjoyed the exercise and it made me popular with a certain type of girl. Unable to do so in person to you then the next best thing is to take up the sport of exposing your poor education and intellectual incapacity as often as I can muster the interest.

  146. Policeman MacCruiskeen

    PS: I stared in puzzlement at your accusation of ‘turrets’ before attending to the garden during which time I have grasped, to my absolute awe, that you meant to insult me by referring to Tourette’s syndrome. LMFAO.

  147. Peter Ormonde

    Michael,

    Take a breather mate … you’re really not up playing on the big table yet … a late developer… very very late I suspect. Bit more reading … bit of spelling and some experience of women or at least going outside.

    “Turrets” … a classic … at first I was thinking it was something to do with Mutton Bird Island’s renown museum on the Marginot Line. Apparently not.

    I’ll be telling that one for weeks down at the Woolibuddha RSL….you crack me up.
    It’s like arguing with Donald Duck.

  148. Michael

    @POLICEMAN MACROUSANT

    But will you still dance with me?

  149. Michael

    @OERMONDO

    I’ve told you before to mind your manners & speak only when spoken to.
    Last warning princess.

  150. David Allen

    “It’s like arguing with Donald Duck”.

    Indeed Peter. And equally pointless.

    Please don’t encourage him. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. They soon tire of shouting in an empty room.

  151. Suzanne Blake

    From Senate Estimates Committees yesterday…

    The Dept of Climate Change has 1013 staff when budget allocated for 856.

    Carbon Tax advertising cost $16M. More than $4M over the $12M they budgeted for.

    A further $3M went in grants to ‘independent’ groups to shore up the YES campaign. Isnt that money for comments?!!

    And best yet! A green-friendly bus that stops off, every 30 minutes, at most Dept buildings in Canberra to take public servants to the airport has shut because it was infrequently used as public servants prefer to use cab charges. The worse offenders? Why the Dept of Climate Change of course who, despite the bus being right outside their doorstep, only used it once…

    Typical socialists ‘do as I say not do as I do!’

  152. Richard Wilson

    @Peter Ormonde & SBH
    “So you see the Liberal Party got only 30.46% … it’s only because of their coalition arrangement with the subservient graspers of the National Party et al that the conservative vote begins to look respectable … but you would want to counting them at all would you … otherwise you’d need to count the Greens and independents towards the ALP and you end up with the top set of numbers..”

    “Here’s the results in order of primary votes:
    ALP – 4,711,363
    Libs – 3,777,383
    LNP of Qld – 1,130,525
    Greens – 1,458,998
    Nats – 462,387”

    So let me get this straight.. when it comes to making arguments that shine a better light on the Labor Government, the Liberal Party is a standalone group, even though it’s been well documented and clearly transparent to the voting public for the best part of 100 years that they are part of a coalition of parties that work together for the one goal while retaining their individual identities where they wanted. Any vote for Liberal, LNP, Nationals, Country Libs, etc. etc. is a conservative vote. People are well aware they are voting for the coalition.. So on primary’s yes the coalition polled higher in the last election.

    Trying to argue that the Liberals only looked okay because they’ve get the National party’s votes added to their tally too is one of the pettier things I’ve seen so far. While they may technically be individual parties, for the purposes of trying to win seats in Parliament, and governing the country, they are the one group that works as a coalition and have been since basically the dawn of time as far as Australian politics goes.

    If we’re going to argue about groups working together, let’s go back and breakdown the groups that made up the coalition of unions that is the Australian Labor Party. Then we’ll work out which one of the factional parties within the Labor party they align to.. work out which candidates they preselected at the last election.. cause i’m pretty sure you’ll find the Labor party results only look good because the Right wingers add the subservient Socialist Lefties votes to their tally, which makes the overall numbers look a lot better.

  153. Michael

    @DAVID ALLEN

    But still getting your attention darling.

  154. Peter Ormonde

    Richard,

    So you would be a supporter of a Liberal and National Party merger then?

    I live in the bush in a National Party stronghold. They run a separate platform at every level … committing the incoming government to all sorts of agrarian socialist twaddle … more roads, banning food imports, smaller potholes, no floods – you name it.

    And no sooner do the numbers get tallied and the ministries allocated, than the excuses start pouring out … time is not right, couldn’t get the numbers in the cabinet … same promises, same excuses … same shell and pea game for almost 100 years.

    So it might be “petty” … a niggling quibble – but there are very very good – if cynical – reasons why the coalition stays a coalition – ask anyone in Canberra… promise everything and deliver nothing and blame our major partners in government. It’s a curious sort of Tory apartheid set-up…it quarantines the Liberals from the consequences of their decisions on rural issues and that is why it a coalition through and through…. and will stay that way.

    But good luck with the amalgamation ticket … one big united conservative party – just what we all need. You bet.

  155. billie

    Will Crikey’s obsession with online polls have its credibility blown by a forensic analysis such as Media Watch applied to that well known pollster McCrindle Research on 17th October?

    see http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3341830.htm

  156. TheTruthHurts

    [“Typical socialists ‘do as I say not do as I do!’”]

    Hey who likes to ride the bus when you can scab off the Australian taxpayer.

    Look at Kristina Keneally having a cry the other day because the Libs wouldn’t give her a tax-payer funded chauffeured Limo to drive her around to charity events.

    The poor bugger, what did Labor politicians ever do before chauffeured Limo’s were invented? Now she’s gotta drive herself in her own car and who out there in the real world DOES that?

    Or worse she might have to catch one of those fantastic NSW train services her government set-up… oh wait….

  157. justmeint

    Once you go to bed with the Devil, sooner or later you will wake up and discover you are in hell! – Which is exactly where Ms. Gillard now finds herself, having to deliver what could be termed as The Devil’s Child – this unmandated Carbon Dioxide Tax.
    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/australia-–-to-be-pitied-or-scorned-–-that-is-the-question/

  158. SBH

    Simple point Richard, they are separate parties. I responded to this

    “@ Oscar Jones

    “as you know Labor received more votes than any other party at the last election”

    WRONG

    Labor 4,711,383 38.0%
    LNP 5,370, 296 43.3%”

    Oscar was right Suzanne Blake was wrong. Again.

  159. William Bowe

    Billie, there is no parallel between Essential Research and McCrindle Research (which I’d never heard of until yesterday). Essential Research targets large samples and weights its data to match the population distribution according to age, gender and geographic location. The whole point of the Media Watch report is that McCrindle does none of these things.

    Peter Ormonde, as you have noted, the voting intention figures from Essential are a two-week rolling average, and hence combine the results of the previous week’s survey with the current one. The responses to the other questions are not, and thus have roughly half the sample size. I am not sure why the rest of the points you raise have confused you, apart from some possible ambiguity about “Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results”. This refers to those who continued to say “don’t know” when prompted by the “which party are you currently leaning to” question – not to all of those who said know to the initial question. Asking undecided voters where who they are leaning towards is standard practice for all pollsters, public and private.

  160. Michael

    It’s inconceivable that you people are still on chewing on this bone. Don’t you have something better to do. Yes you Oermondo!

  161. Peter Ormonde

    William,

    So as a result of this massaging there is no result on the outcome of the survey results – you reckon that’s right?

    One of the things that confuses me is that the distribution of preferences is assumed to conform with what happened in 2010. That doesn’t confuse or worry you?

    You reckon this is a reliable method for determining what we think …. ie it reliably answers the question, if an election was held next week Labor would be …?

  162. SBH

    Although Peter Ormonde, if we look at it from Richard’s viewpoint we could say that the great and enduring lie in Australian politics is that if you vote National that’s who governs. National voters have never (three months of Black Jack aside) had their own prime minister, never voted in a government party.

    “Junior” partner doesn’t begin to describe the Nationals impotence. They are routinely made the Liberals cats paw. The only Nationals issues that get attention are ones the Libs want to give attention to and yet they keep delivering the prize to their – ahem- partners. Frankly they share as many policies with the ALP governing faction as they do with the Libs. National voters should give this some thought next time around.

  163. Peter Ormonde

    SBH …

    “National voters should give this some thought next time around.”

    Ah yes, that’s the nub of it. I think this might be – in the parlance of the current crop TV journos – a “disconnect.”

    Here in Woolibuddha, thinking is not traditionally encouraged. One votes for Maude and Geoff’s brother-in-law’s nephew… lovely bloke … and his wife Cheryl and the twins are so delightful … played footie as a lad and he is on the bowling club committee. He’ll get those potholes fixed yessiree.

    And meanwhile the town shrinks, the jobs disappear and the main road opens up like Grand Canyon. And that’s the guvvermint innit – not our Trevor.

    What did Marx call it … rural idiocy. But it is changing – slowly and in some places – quite quickly. Watch this blank potholed space.

    Doesn’t show up too well in the polling but.

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/17/essential-we-dont-like-carbon-tax-any-more-now-its-passed/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.