Carbon Tax passed in lower house
The government’s carbon tax package was passed 74 votes to 72, with applause from the government benches as legislation was passed with the support of independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, and Greens MP Adam Bandt.
Cost of living to rise with no benefit for the environment – sounds like an ALP plan.
Now watch the pressure ramp up on the Senate.
UPDATE:
Latest NEWSPOLL has 60% of respondents against the Tax and that’s not going to go down when they start getting increased bills in the knowledge that their suffering won’t help the environment one little bit.
Facebook
Twitter
October 12th
Strange old day isn’t it. Kev.
In modern Australia, this day has two key identifiers.
Bali Bombings and now Carbon Tax legislated in the Lower House.
Australia is furious today that an unmandated tax was passed, so furious that everyone forgot about the largest civilian atrocity in the nation’s history.
I am very disappointed of course and not because I am ideological, because if AGW science was proven, I would support the pain.
I have read a lot of commentary today, and it is running about 8 to 2 or 3 fury over the tax.
Both of these events effect the nation, in the first under John Howard’s leadership the nation united almost as one in grief, then identified real issues and worked through them.
But in today’s events it seems Australi is uniting against Australia’s political leadership.
The Labor party is back slapping itself, cuddles and kisses all round.
I have watched the light on the hill blink into darkness, once the Party of workers now the party of elites.
I’m looking for positives and maybe it this – people are so pissed off that the ALP are dead in the water and Abbott has ship loads of ammo to fire at them – today’s vote against the wishes of the voters has taken any goodwill they have left and will turn them into a small radical party of minimal consequences.
I see double dissolution in the future.
“largest civilian atrocity in the nation’s history” – remind me how many Nashos died in Vietnam. But that was Coalition policy – must have been OK….
Labor has done some daft things recently, but they have a long way to go to top that. It’s interesting to compare the history of the introduction of conscription in the 60s to Carbon pricing. I don’t recall Menzies going to the electorate before that decision was made. Menzies was, of course, a student of history, and probably considered the outcome of the referenda in WW1.
?
It ought to be obvious….but an explanation.
The confected hue and cry about carbon pricing and democracy emanates from people with collective amnesia. In March 1966 the then Coalition government following amendments to the National Service Act, committed conscripts to a war zone – the only time, outside of World War 2, when this occurred.
At the time, it was not put to the ballot prior to the decision being announced.
I don’t recall a hue and cry about “democracy” back then. Nor did I get a vote in the 1969 election, despite, at the time, being warned for service in Vietnam. You’ll understand, therefore, that I’m slightly less than impressed by the moaning and gnashing of teeth from Tony and his sheeple.
Of course, we were dealing with the lives and collective futures of about one in twelve – below the political threshold of damage at the time. The Right have always put the hip pocket first, way ahead of human life, so they are, at least, consistent.
The only regret I have is that a carbon price wasn’t applied in the first term of the Labor government.
Robert, hurry and open your front door…..there’s a doctor and two attendants with a specially constructed canvas jacket, with extra long sleeves, there to take you for a free ride, and it won’t be in a MX5. Where did that BS come from???????
OK – you’re through with gratuitous abuse – now address the points I made. In case you missed it, I compared the behavior of a past conservative government with the introduction of a price on carbon- relevant to the discussion.
“…remind me how many Nashos died in Vietnam…”
No, if you can’t remember look it up.
Civilian atrocity? National Service?
17 bobby red-herring true to form. Off topic and a nonsense reference to Vietnam…
Can you bear it?
“It’s interesting to compare the history of the introduction of conscription in the 60s to Carbon pricing.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
Absolute comedy gold.
“I am very disappointed of course and not because I am ideological, because if AGW science was proven, I would support the pain.”
Why? this plan will not do a thing to alleviate AGW (assuming that AGW theory is exacty correct and this tax will work exactly as designed), remember the rest of the world is backing away from this level of stupidity, so the supposed benefits are measured in the 1000ths of a degree (ie undetectable in the statistical noise) and the cost estimates range in the $600 billion to a trillion dollars area (I’m betting it will go higher if it is not killed – see every other program that the ALP/Greens have run. Estimates to kill this tax after the double dissolution election, around $4 billion, cheap at twice the price and easily funded, halve overseas aid, gut ABC funding (or sell it to Fox) and cease govt funding for the yartz. its Win/Win.
agree
The triumphant kissy kissy back slapping session by Labor and its lickspittles Oakeshot and Windsor in the chamber after the vote seems to have lifted the blood pressure of about 80% of the population.
It will make good piccies for TV ads next election. First Gillard and Swan’s lies regarding no carbon tax, then the high fives as they celebrate breaking their solemn promises not to introduce the tax.
One thing that really set people off in the gallery today was the Speaker’s insistence that it was a privilege for Australians to observe proceedings in the house.
It appears he’s forgotten that he and his very temporary comrades serve us at our pleasure. That service is a privilege we bestow on them. Rather than it being a privilege for us to observe their mendacious celebrations.
17 bobby red-herring is making a fool of himself at the bunyip\’s blog too.
Same stupid Vietnam reference, same off topic drivel.
http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/10/signs-of-times.html
Did not the Liberals and the Nationals support carbon pricing /carbon tax before Malcolm Turnbull was stabbed in the back by Tony Abbott???
I did not like the idea of a GST, but I cam to live with it. I am sure Kev that you will come to live with the “Carbon Tax”.
My view is we can’t sit on our hands and do nothing as climate change is real.
I know what the government’s policy is. What is Abbott’s policy to address climate change? Why is he not explaining it instead of saying “No” to everything?
You didn’t think that one through Peter. Howard took the GST to the electorate; it cost him votes and seats but he got back in. GST replace a host of taxes – for example the old sales tax of 27.5% become the 10% of GST. Of course you come to live with it.
Conversely, Gillard said categorically, that she wouldn’t bring a Carbon Tax in and then did. It is an impost, it doesn’t replace anything, it just makes things more expensive and it’s a Left/Greenie dream. Conservatives want something a bit more practical that doesn’t just pay homage to the Greens/the UN and the bankers and traders who are busy tonight salivating over the money they are going to make from the punter.
And for what. If you believe that only goods from the big bad 500 will cost more and you can avoid that cost, then think again. Everything has to cost more because we are talking about electricity and fuel and the Greenies want us to use less.
AND, exactly how will it help the environment. I still have to use electricity and fuel my V8 (and my wife’s super economic shopping cart Suzuki Swift)and the pool has to be filtered and my computers and TVs need power.
We know it won’t help the economy.
What you guys have to realize is the reason you keep on saying Turnbull should be the Lib leader, or he was stabbed in the back by Abbott, is exactly the reason why we don’t want him. After the election defeat we went through a dark period where we had a leader who may as well have been an ALP man. Us conservatives didn’t want him.
Tony won his caucous.
He won against not just Turnbull.
He was a direct Candidate on this issue.
He faced two candidates, Turnbull a merchant banker and if you think he has not got a finger in the Carbon Trading pie, then you know nothing about Turnbull and what he thinks about democracy. His party sacked him or else there would not have been a spill. He bum rushed his own caucous triggering a spill on this issue, he resigned on twitter of all places and then recanted, probably his political backers. Gave him an earful who knows.
The third was Hockey I think, can’t remember. His position was pro carbon trading but wishy washy. Hockeys your nice bloke conservative and Tony and Malcolm are political pit bulls.
From the day Tony took the job, the caucous has aligned and swept opposition leaders from power, destroyed oppostion competitiveness and it’s not Tony its his policy position. Though Tony is a perfect mainstream candidate and Hockey and Turnbull appear elite.
These are facts historical.
Kev
You did not acknowledge I was correct:
1) The coalition did support Turnbull’s policy.
2) Turnbull was rolled by Abbott.
Also you did not respond to: “I know what the government’s policy is. What is Abbott’s policy to address climate change? Why is he not explaining it instead of saying “No” to everything?”
Perhaps he has no policy.
He is not explaining his policy because the ALP policy is the one that needs debate. Debate at this point of the election cycle is about what the government are doing, not what the opposition might do in a year or two should they win office.
Whereas I’m happy for Labor acolytes to continue developing their art form of underestimating Abbott, you can’t in all reality think he is stupid. When the election is called, or when he thinks it tactically timely, he will announce his policies. Until then the only debate of the day is what the incompetent lot in Canberra are doing.
Get used to that – it’s all about what Gillard is doing now, not what Abbott might do in the future.
Abbott rolled Turnbull. Use whatever word you like but I say Abbott defeated Turnbull in a vote for party leader. The party, in the confusion after the election debacle, turned inwards and for a while offered themselves up as a labor lite alternative.
The party eventually listened to wiser counsel and turned back to what they are and always have been – a conservative, anti socialist and anti Greens party.
The polls reflect the wisdom of that move and the only people advocating Turnbull as leader do not have LNP interest at heart.
Kev,
I have never said that Abbott is stupid. He is a smart man. I have said he is rude (I am being polite here) and that he and I have history.
As a former member of the Liberal party, they will have to find a new leader before they get my vote again.
Careful Peter, you’re not toeing the party line – next you’ll be abused by the resident angry old man, have your sanity questioned, and be accused of leftist tendencies. You’ll probably escape abuse on the basis of your service, however, unless you disclose it.
I began posting here a few years ago because I thought it might provide a discussion forum for ex-diggers, regardless of political persuasion. How wrong I was……
Objection to action on climate change comes from the same mindset that thought it was OK to poison the environment in Vietnam through the indiscriminate use of defoliants.
As far back as I’ve had the time to investigate, the issue is completely ignored by those posting here. It’s beyond bizarre.
As the resident “angry old man” could I ask what specifically is wrong about my comment that would occasion it being termed “the party line”?
Objection to action on climate change comes from the same mindset that thought it was OK to poison the environment in Vietnam through the indiscriminate use of defoliants.
Big call. It is not objection to action, it is objection to the ALP/Green/UN based ideological action that has Australia leading the world in dismantling it’s economy at a time when more reasoned folks would suggest we adopt a wait-a-bit programme while maybe looking at ramping up R&D on renewables.
We are about to force people to look to renewables when there is no viable renewables in existence. We have nowhere to go but to simply pay more for utilities.
Kev
Neither Abbott nor Gillard see AGW as a scientific issue. Each has attempted to exploit it for political advantage, and each has had more positions on it than the Karma Sutra.
On this issue I gave up reading anything but scientific journals years ago. This has convinced me that we should be taking action. Unfortunately, the only motivator that works to change behaviour in the corporate world (the real source of transnational power) is the financial one. Hence a price on carbon.
By the way, you weren’t the resident angry old man I had in mind. He probably looks like this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNY376o2XMY&NR=1
I’ll let you decide which regular poster I’m thinking of…
Anyone reading this blog for more five minutes would have no trouble identifying the party line.
I once thought 1735099 was a raving leftie. I do not think that anymore, as I do not believe it is possible to sustain for so long the views held by him.
Instead, I think he is a right winger who loves to stir the pot.
In any case, keep it up you old devil of a parent, teacher, advocate, student, petrol head, author, bad poet, ex-soldier and dreamer. However, if you really want your book sales to take off, add to your CV “short order cook” and “sailor on a tramp steamer”.
He could add “grand-parent” if he has grand-kids in North Adelaide.
1735099…..if you were 21 in 1969 and didn’t vote, you hadn’t registered, chose not to or perhaps were at Canungra in training for your trip. No matter….your side lost the ballot…..had a good showing but lost…if you had voted it would have meant less than nothing to the result…..nobody noticed. Sadly you have this one eyed view of the hard done by “conscript”. Conscription was the method used to raise numbers in the services. From march in date to discharge the personnel engaged were service personnel….subject to the whims of Government and the voters who decided the election. In reality a nasho is a short term reg. and although directed into the role, performed with honour and distinction alongside career soldiers. You had your chance to front Grey and get an exemption from the free travel ticket but chose not to…..put away the hanky.
“You had your chance to front Grey”
The old myth resurfaces – total bullshit. You identify for me one digger who actually went through this process, and I might believe you.
In 7RAR at least, in my time, it was a “never happen” scenario.
As for the hanky, I don’t feel sorry for myself, and never will, but I’m entitled to hold an opinion on conscription, even if it differs from yours. I talk about it because it is instructive to remind those who have forgotten recent history. It reminds us of a practice that an Australian Coalition government used in fairly recent history. That practice put the Liberals and Nationals of the time in the company of regimes like those of Stalinist Russia and Imperial Japan.
You have a sad tendency to reduce every issue to a personal attack.
That practice put the Liberals and Nationals of the time in the company of regimes like those of Stalinist Russia and Imperial Japan.
You guys had the commos and barracked for the enemy…Cairns (ALP) collected money for they NVA so they could kill us better. He arranged the moratoriums to support the VC/NVA. Conscription was the only way the West could slow down the scourge of communism – you need to get over it.
“get over it”
What precisely do I have to get over, Kev?
Is it my service in 7RAR? Sure I was unwilling, but like those who volunteered, I did my duty. Is the fact that I was a Nasho something I have to get over?
Is it my objection to conscription? Why am I not just as free as anyone else to have a view on that subject?
Is it my expression of political opinion? This is a free country, and don’t we all have the right to hold an opinion without personal vilification?
Is it my life since Vietnam? I’ve been married to the same woman for thirty-five years, raised four great kids, worked in a wonderful profession for over forty years, and am still earning a quid, paying tax and not on a pension. Is that something to “get over”?
Let me know exactly what it is I have to get over, Kev. I’d really love to know.
‘In 7RAR at least, in my time, it was a “never happen” scenario’
It happened once to my knowledge, but in the end had a tragic outcome, so I won’t get into it. It was in your time Bobby.
“It reminds us of a practice that an Australian Coalition government used in fairly recent history.”
You carry on as if conscription/draft is an Australian disease Bobby. It is a widely used in a number of civilised countries to raise the numbers in the armed services. If we were placed in a situation requiring numbers in our services you can bet that our current socialist Governmen would soon re-introduce it. Juliar and friends may call it something else as Labor usually does but it would be re-introduced and then Abbott would be blamed. Try and get something positive from your experience, but get over it. The reason your son sucked his thumb has nothing to do with your being conscripted to serve in the Army.
“As for the hanky, I don’t feel sorry for myself…”
Liar.