Pragmatic politics … she’s trying to shore up the Greek vote in Melbourne by adopting the Nana Mouskouri look.
[d&r]
Well, that’s disappointing. Sort of.
I happened to be in Australia when they had the Carbon Tax vote, and the pundits seemed to agree that the next election would be the start of a chain of events:
- Labour is voted out in the House;
- The new government gets a bill through to get rid of the Carbon Tax;
- Because of the additional Green support in the Senate, Labour and Green combine to defeat it there;
- Six months later, the bill is reintroduced in the House, passes again, and is defeated in the Senate again;
- The PM goes to the Governor-General and asks that both the House and Senate be dissolved and new elections take place;
- The Governor-General agrees;
- The government get enough seats in both houses to guarantee the passage of a bill to get rid of the Carbon Tax.
Of course, there’s an alternative:
1-4 are the same as above
5. The far-left wing of the US Democratic Party “persuades” President Obama that it would be in the best interest of the country to “persuade” UK PM Cameron to suggest to (i.e. tell) The Queen that Australia’s Governor-General needs to be recalled and replaced with someone who won’t dissolve its Parliament.
A carbon tax is that big an electoral issue? Is Oz full of conspiracy theorists or something?
Note that the PM of the UK has neither the legal nor the moral authority to advise the Queen of Australia in her choice of GG. Only the Australian PM can do that.
Not that Obama or Cameron want to stick their noses in Aussie politics to prevent the repeal of something like a carbon tax.
Oh it’s Labor, they changed their name from Labour to align with the world wide Labor movement.
But yeah I think Julia has lost this election, a lot of people I know are changing to conservative economics but maybe that’s because we are all getting older. The Greens who would normally give preferences to Labor are a ship without a captain ATM.
Well the Libs need something to bash Labor with and tax is always a good one. What we need to remember is that the parties are targeting swinging voters, those that sit a little bit right of centre, these people are generally blue collar.
It was a big issue in Canada in the 2008 federal election. The Liberal party ran on a carbon tax policy and was defeated by the Conservatives who were against such a tax.
And what on earth does this have to do with a conspiracy theory anyway? “Hey, here’s a new tax we want to impose on you!” is really not a good election platform.
I assumed we were talking about one on businesses. Am I missing something?
What’s the difference? You increase taxes on businesses and the additional cost has to be absorbed somewhere. People would end up paying more for gasoline, heating fuel, electricity, groceries, and just about everything else. It’s a tax grab, pure and simple and won’t do anything at all to help the environment.
Until China, India, and the US implement similar tax schemes it is a useless tax grab.
I think Australians feel the same way, but I can’t speak for them.
You may be right about how many Australians feel because many know as little about it as you clearly do.
In the fight against ignorance could you please educate me then?
Thanks.
yep please use small words :rolleyes:
of course the majority understand
To put all this in context, please: What are the most salient and/or divisive political issues in Australia today, and how do they differ from those in other democracies?
Unfortunately, this election will come down to uber-banal issues, like whether Tony Abbott is a misogynist, or whether union funds were misappropriated by Labor hicks to pay for hookers and chewing gum. :rolleyes:
I am so ashamed. For gawd’s sakes, bring back the good old Gough days when an election was a fair-dinkum ideological fight to the death.
Divisive political issues, IMHO, are the following: carbon tax, boat people, the National Broadband Network (NBN), corruption in the ALP and misogyny and shallowness in the Coalition.
Former Labor member Craig Thomson was charged yesterday with 150 (149?) counts of fraud only a day after the election was called; meanwhile, in NSW, a corruption inquiry on dealings in the state’s former Labor government is no doubt further souring voters in key seats. (Thomson, notably, is now in a pissing match with the current NSW Premier.)
These stories are largely overshadowing Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s announcement that he will scrap the “Schoolkids Bonus” (i.e. cash given to families of school-age children) as well as leaked emails where he was very concerned about looking like “a good bloke” who is “fair dinkum”.
Boat people and the NBN are two issues that have recently gone silent. I expect to hear lots more talk from Abbott about “stopping the boats” in the next eight months, however.
IMHO, the carbon tax and ALP corruption will win the Coalition the election. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has a perpetual credibility problem, as does her party (especially with Kevin Rudd always getting his face on TV, reminding us all of just how dysfunctional the ALP is); despite Abbott being generally disliked, it is the Libs’ election to lose.
What?
No, it’s just that everything keeps getting more expensive here (especially in the eyes of the average punter) and a lot of people think the Carbon Tax (rightly or wrongly) has something to do with it.
They may (or may not) have a point.
Pretty much my feelings on the subject. And I believe the average punter thinks all the political parties are as bad as each other anyway.
The carbon tax as a package is essentially revenue neutral. Actually it goes slightly into the red. Over half the revenue has gone directly to household subsidies. The rest goes back to the carbon produces but tied to research into greener energy, plus admin costs.
So were it a “tax grab” it would be a miserable failure, since all it’s done is raise no money while scaring ignorant voters who don’t understand how it works.
The present government has no fiscal difficulties. It has nothing significant to gain by a “tax grab”. The present government is - to put it mildly - struggling politically. Yet the carbon tax has handed to the opposition a sword for use on the government’s own neck, which sword the opposition is swinging very effectively (if rather disingenuously).
In short, the carbon tax:
1/ isn’t a tax grab;
2/ has been introduced by a government with no need for a tax grab:
3/ against the government’s short-to-medium political interests
Sceptical as you and I both probably are, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the government has introduced this carbon tax because they think it’s the right thing to do, environmentally.
You may not think it is the right thing to do environmentally, but tax grab pure and simple it clearly ain’t.