http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-greens-say-the-carbon-tax-will-need-to-be-far-above-40-a-tonne-while-the-government-says-it-will-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057628289

As predicted, the Greens have said they want a very severe Carbon tax price, far above that which the government is willing to introduce. They are alse on record as saying they want NO compensation for industry and zero compensation for anyone other than the poor.

This is a scenario that Gillard cannot contemplate or anything even remotely like it. To try that would split the Labor party down the middle and destroy her govt and probably render them unelectable to 10-15 years - or more.

The Greens are an absolutist party. They dont negotiate or compromise. If they dont get their own way, they vote NO as was their record of voting against 96% of legislation in the previous government (source: Anthony Albanese).  When the carbon tax goes to the lower house it will probably fail as it needs every vote to pass. If by some miracle the dimwitted Adam Bandt votes FOR it, it has no chance in the senate where even more left-wing idealogues await it.

When - not if - the carbon tax fails, what of Gillard? The Greens alliance-from-hell will be effectively over and her government with it. She will be unable to govern with virtually all legislation unlikely to pass.

She has tried to dance with the devil, but the devil will destroy her and possibnly her party as well.

I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way.

The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later.

Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower.

It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off.

Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens.

If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election.

The greens can push for some change but essentially they must pass this legislation and all major government policy or it will be the end of the greens as a balance of power in the senate for ever. This would be a tragedy for the country as the last thing we need is one of the majors controlling the senate.
Basically the current atmosphere dictates that the government must pass the carbon tax and it must work or they are history long term.

Quote:

...Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow...

Interesting observation there freediver.. :-?








.

The greens are bluffing. Brown just wants to remind Gillard as to who is running the government. Brown is always whinging about how Gillard is not listening to the greens demands so has done this little stunt to try and get Gillard worried.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way.

judging by recent polls where their votes have gone from 13% to 7% the best they can do is bluff ie a 38% drop in support

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens.

the the Greens' vote dived by 38% so there is no drift to the Greens

Maqqa wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. judging by recent polls where their votes have gone from 13% to 7% the best they can do is bluff ie a 38% drop in support

From 13% to 7%, isn't that a drop of around 46% support?
(13-6=7, 6/13 =46%)
Only the gullible gerties are still following the greens

thank you creep for the correct :)

So basically the article doesn't say anything like what the OP is suggesting? Yes, the denier a lying s**tbags who will graso\p at any opportunity to discredit their opponents and let the truth be damned! Bunch of sad tossers really.

The Greens will pass the legislation. They don't have a choice, their future as a credible party depends on it.

Have a listen to Brown being made a fool of over carbon.  

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:47pm:

So basically the article doesn't say anything like what the OP is suggesting? Yes, the denier a lying s**tbags who will graso\p at any opportunity to discredit their opponents and let the truth be damned! Bunch of sad tossers really.

If you have been around in politics longer than 10 mins ie NOT you, then you will have seen all this before. the Greens will NOT pass the Carbon tax unless they get most of what they want and that would be political suicide for Labor.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election.

The same argument applied to the ETS. better a tax that was low by their standards than to block it completely. it was absolutist politics and was little more than the Greens throwing a tanty.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election.

You must have missed the latest polls. the drift to the Greens stopped a while ago and it was the carbon tax that is actually causing their vote to plummet. This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price.

Greens will pass the Carbon Tax.

In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms.

The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election. You must have missed the latest polls. the drift to the Greens stopped a while ago and it was the carbon tax that is actually causing their vote to plummet. This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price.

Yes the far right extremist media like Murdoch press and their lackeys like liarsweakend have done a Stirling job of convincing a  percentage of the population that they will be worse off with a carbon tax that will in fact give the average consumer more money in their pocket and only affect a very small amount of industry who will pay the tax only if they decide not to revert to greener options. Well done liars weakend, no body could have run a lies a fear campaign against the dumb fcks in the community as well as you and your co lying ass holes have.

The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later.




havent this bunch of gangsters done enough deceitful actions already????????????????????????????????????????????

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.

SNEAKY THATS THE WAY TO GO.....its the only way the Labs and greens KNOW>. shame on you shame on the lot of you.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.

You know that, I know that and almost everybody else knows it as well. but the stupid GREENS DONT know it! they are political amateurs with no idea of how to implement controversial policy. they cant even SPELL compromise or pronounce NEGOTIATE!

You are quite correct but the Greens are idiots that simply dont play well with others. and they will block the Carbon Tax.

Quote:

...will in fact give the average consumer more money in their pocket...

Dont ferget the banks and carbon traders. More money in their pockets too.. :-? ...Oh, lets not ferget Al Gore either - LOTS more money in his pocket.. ;D


The Greens - Al Gores Useful Idiots.. :) i
.

skippy. wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election. You must have missed the latest polls. the drift to the Greens stopped a while ago and it was the carbon tax that is actually causing their vote to plummet. This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price. Yes the far right extremist media like Murdoch press and their lackeys like liarsweakend have done a Stirling job of convincing a  percentage of the population that they will be worse off with a carbon tax that will in fact give the average consumer more money in their pocket and only affect a very small amount of industry who will pay the tax only if they decide not to revert to greener options. Well done liars weakend, no body could have run a lies a fear campaign against the dumb fcks in the community as well as you and your co lying ass holes have.

The average consumer will NOT be better off and easy to prove using basic maths. only 50% of the revenue will be used as compensation therefore imlying that AT BEST only half the people willl be compensated. and since gillard says poor wil be BETTER off that means only 25% wil be compensated. and since there are administration expenses which wil be massive and need to come out of this pool that wil mean 10-15% will be compensated.

skippy. wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election. You must have missed the latest polls. the drift to the Greens stopped a while ago and it was the carbon tax that is actually causing their vote to plummet. This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price. Yes the far right extremist media like Murdoch press and their lackeys like liarsweakend have done a Stirling job of convincing a  percentage of the population that they will be worse off with a carbon tax that will in fact give the average consumer more money in their pocket and only affect a very small amount of industry who will pay the tax only if they decide not to revert to greener options. Well done liars weakend, no body could have run a lies a fear campaign against the dumb fcks in the community as well as you and your co lying ass holes have.

ha you obviously dont read your fellow greens..


where the options are to PUT THE BlOODY TAX up after they get it passed..


first they cause  PANIC to gain votes... now its lie through your teeth...then mug the mugs after its been passed.

you accuse the Murdock press and longy of lying.

what do you call this then????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


fear campaign the only one I have seen is

THE WORLD WILL END IN 2013 if dont act yesterday.. Al bloody Gore.and booby brown.

and the "Greatest Moral Challenge of our Time"... Kevin Rudd.



you are the one sitting there bragging about no electricity bills..you are the one that can afford to take the govt rebate to get all this cheaper power... I unfortunately am picking up the cost of all this RE..well done to the rich and well off for being able to take advantage of this kick back from the taxpayers..I dont begrudge you one bit.. if I was in that position I would do the same... not because I think I am doing the planet a service.. but because I dont like the electricity bills I am getting..

would all this solar/windmill be as popular if the govt wasnt giving a rebate????????

cynic I am!

Quote:

The average consumer will NOT be better off

Liarsweakend doing his best at lying again, he must be Abbott's lackey.


Quote:

only 50% of the revenue will be used as compensation therefore imlying that AT BEST only half the people willl be compensated.

LOL, ;D not only a liar, a freaking idiot as well, please no body explain his stupidity to him, let him linger in the ignorance he so desires.

well we only have your word for it... the poor will be better off..[?].I should live long enough to see that day?...

however to assume you are correct... and if they up the price mid term like has been suggested by your fellow greens...and I am sure sneaky booby has already thought of doing that...because lets face it.. he doesnt really want to lose his seat of Power just yet does he??..

so it will do him no favours if he refuses to pass this TAX lower than he would like.

but should they up the price what guarantees are we poor people going to get that they will compensate us more....

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. You know that, I know that and almost everybody else knows it as well. but the stupid GREENS DONT know it! they are political amateurs with no idea of how to implement controversial policy. they cant even SPELL compromise or pronounce NEGOTIATE! You are quite correct but the Greens are idiots that simply dont play well with others. and they will block the Carbon Tax.

Actually blocking the ETS was the only major block the Greens did.  It's the coalition who aren't negotiating.  

Realistically a better policy outcome would occur if there was bipartisan support on this type of reform.  Instead the coalition are heading into the past, and as a result you can blame them for the fact that Labor has to deal with the Greens, who do want a more radical approach.

But in reality, the Greens have been good with negotiations and compromise, and while they may say no in the first vote, they usually do pass in the second, after negotiations and winning SOME of their changes.  They aren't like Fielding who wants ALL of his changes implemented.

The Greens will pass the carbon tax if they want to stay competitive, and if they want environmental policy to continue in this country.

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. SNEAKY THATS THE WAY TO GO.....its the only way the Labs and greens KNOW>. shame on you shame on the lot of you.

what the hell are you even talking about? Made absolutely NO SENSE.   Stop drinking so early!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:08am:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. SNEAKY THATS THE WAY TO GO.....its the only way the Labs and greens KNOW>. shame on you shame on the lot of you. what the hell are you even talking about? Made absolutely NO SENSE.   Stop drinking so early!

Oh good, I'm not the only one who finds it hard to follow what she writes.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:08am:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. SNEAKY THATS THE WAY TO GO.....its the only way the Labs and greens KNOW>. shame on you shame on the lot of you. what the hell are you even talking about? Made absolutely NO SENSE.   Stop drinking so early!

The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.  
Back to top  

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 10:08am: cods wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. SNEAKY THATS THE WAY TO GO.....its the only way the Labs and greens KNOW>. shame on you shame on the lot of you. what the hell are you even talking about? Made absolutely NO SENSE.   Stop drinking so early! The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.   Back to top

And what's so "sneaky" about that? Shame on you? WHAT?

skippy. wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 10:08am: cods wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. SNEAKY THATS THE WAY TO GO.....its the only way the Labs and greens KNOW>. shame on you shame on the lot of you. what the hell are you even talking about? Made absolutely NO SENSE.   Stop drinking so early! Oh good, I'm not the only one who finds it hard to follow what she writes.

The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.  
Back to top  



well some of us like to stretch your minds and not just your pink knickers.. boys.. it helps of you read your own posts...or at least  do a comprehension course..

I realise the Libs are above you in the 3 Rs... but really I am amazed that you admit it..

never mind boys back to the basics... when do we vote on gay marriage??????????.. I am sure booby has that at the top of his must do list.

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.   Back to top   well some of us like to stretch your minds and not just your pink knickers.. boys.. it helps of you read your own posts...or at least  do a comprehension course.. I realise the Libs are above you in the 3 Rs... but really I am amazed that you admit it.. never mind boys back to the basics... when do we vote on gay marriage??????????.. I am sure booby has that at the top of his must do list.

I don't think a comprehension course is what's needed. I think we need to do a psychology degree, just to be able to get to understand you, and from there understand where all of this comes from. Because at the moment, it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.

I note that the Australian Climate Change Minister has admitted that the carbon tax will increase year on year.

More and more out of people's pockets to live.

As if we all aren't struggling enough with cost of living already.

.




Quote:

The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.

Hmmm, except...

"...The carbon price has been widely expected to start at between $20 and $30 a tonne, but confidential research by Deloittes for the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, says that with east coast gas prices rising, black coal will remain the cheapest way to generate power unless the price on emissions rises relatively quickly to $40 a tonne..."

So apparently at under $40 a tonne the 'tax' wont work... (actualy, that will be consistant - our current government implimenting things that dont work) This Deloittes claim that under $40 aint gunna do any thing is just more ammo against the carbon tax scam.. :)



The shear utter stupidity of it all. Them aflicted with climate hysteria and the green gestapo want Oz to stop using our abundant cheap energy supplies that we have in this country and to import Chinese manufactured wind and solar power units.

 Cheap Oz coal produced energy means cheaper to manufacture here which means more income to Oz. Importing expensive unreliable energy production units from China means more expensive manufacturing in Oz which means jobs go over to China which means a poorer Oz. How stupid can yer get.

 In the meantime China would buy all our coal mines if it could - it has already tried. China would not be attempting to buy all our coal mines if it did not intend to use the coal....i
.

Flying Binghi wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:01pm:

. Quote: The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned.   Hmmm, except... "...The carbon price has been widely expected to start at between $20 and $30 a tonne, but confidential research by Deloittes for the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, says that with east coast gas prices rising, black coal will remain the cheapest way to generate power unless the price on emissions rises relatively quickly to $40 a tonne..." So apparently at under $40 a tonne the 'tax' wont work... (actualy, that will be consistant - our current government implimenting things that dont work) This Deloittes claim that under $40 aint gunna do any thing is just more ammo against the carbon tax scam.. :) The shear utter stupidity of it all. Them aflicted with climate hysteria and the green gestapo want Oz to stop using our abundant cheap energy supplies that we have in this country and to import Chinese manufactured wind and solar power units.  Cheap Oz coal produced energy means cheaper to manufacture here which means more income to Oz. Importing expensive unreliable energy production units from China means more expensive manufacturing in Oz which means jobs go over to China which means a poorer Oz. How stupid can yer get.  In the meantime China would buy all our coal mines if it could - it has already tried. China would not be attempting to buy all our coal mines if it did not intend to use the coal....

Implementation does not to be hard start straight away.  

You can do phased adoption implementation, where you start off with small, and gradually build it up.  Takes longer, but in this case, when there is a valid argument that not all our trade partners have a Carbon Tax, it would result in a lot less pain.

Greens need to realise this, and when they do, and pass the Carbon Tax, then we can actually move forward, and I can bet in 20 years time we'd be laughing at the comments coming from the conservatives, just like we always laugh at comments coming from conservatives about the doom and gloom.

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:53am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election. The same argument applied to the ETS. better a tax that was low by their standards than to block it completely. it was absolutist politics and was little more than the Greens throwing a tanty.

The ETS was overly complex. That's why they called it a CPRS instead.


Quote:

This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price.

This can be said of any party. Only a small minority of people actually support a party. Most people simply vote for whichever one they see as not as bad as the others. The reason people were protesting is because the major parties failed to do something serious about climate change.

Your idea that even the left of the political spectrum suddenly rejected action on climate change once faced with the prospect of it is ludicrous. This debate has been around for long enough and been close enough to happening with the CPRS for people to know what is involved.

skippy. wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:48am:

Quote: The average consumer will NOT be better off Liarsweakend doing his best at lying again, he must be Abbott's lackey. [quote]only 50% of the revenue will be used as compensation therefore imlying that AT BEST only half the people willl be compensated.

LOL, ;D not only a liar, a freaking idiot as well, please no body explain his stupidity to him, let him linger in the ignorance he so desires.
[/quote]

then why dont you explain to me you simplistic twit how ANYONE can be better off if less than half the tax is returned?

your failure in mathematics is extreme. that is year 5 reasoning!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:06am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:25am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:03am: Greens will pass the Carbon Tax. In the end, the Greens realise that this may be their last opportunity to have a carbon tax for quite some time.  They may reject the first vote on it, but ultimately come second time around it will go through.  Not doing so will leave the government without an agenda, assure Coalition victory, and put any agenda on the environment on the back foot for at least 2 more terms. The thing Greens need to realise is that it's better to begin a small implemented carbon tax, that once settled into the markets can be worked on, and built on.  Small steps.  You can't straight away bring in a $40 price, which will be suicide, and expect that it won't be overturned. You know that, I know that and almost everybody else knows it as well. but the stupid GREENS DONT know it! they are political amateurs with no idea of how to implement controversial policy. they cant even SPELL compromise or pronounce NEGOTIATE! You are quite correct but the Greens are idiots that simply dont play well with others. and they will block the Carbon Tax. Actually blocking the ETS was the only major block the Greens did.  It's the coalition who aren't negotiating.   Realistically a better policy outcome would occur if there was bipartisan support on this type of reform.  Instead the coalition are heading into the past, and as a result you can blame them for the fact that Labor has to deal with the Greens, who do want a more radical approach. But in reality, the Greens have been good with negotiations and compromise, and while they may say no in the first vote, they usually do pass in the second, after negotiations and winning SOME of their changes.  They aren't like Fielding who wants ALL of his changes implemented. The Greens will pass the carbon tax if they want to stay competitive, and if they want environmental policy to continue in this country.

that kind of comment makes you look astonishly uninformed and stupid. they routinely vote against almost ALL legislation. their 96% NO record is hardly that of a party that compromises and negotiates!

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:53am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election. The same argument applied to the ETS. better a tax that was low by their standards than to block it completely. it was absolutist politics and was little more than the Greens throwing a tanty. The ETS was overly complex. That's why they called it a CPRS instead. Quote: This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price. This can be said of any party. Only a small minority of people actually support a party. Most people simply vote for whichever one they see as not as bad as the others. The reason people were protesting is because the major parties failed to do something serious about climate change. Your idea that even the left of the political spectrum suddenly rejected action on climate change once faced with the prospect of it is ludicrous. This debate has been around for long enough and been close enough to happening with the CPRS for people to know what is involved.

SOmetimes your posts are thoroughly nonsensical. Ive highlighted a couple of the absurd claims you make.

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:31pm:

that kind of comment makes you look astonishly uninformed and stupid. they routinely vote against almost ALL legislation. their 96% NO record is hardly that of a party that compromises and negotiates!

I won't pretend that I don't know Greens record - I haven't had the chance to look over aph.gov.au.

What I do know is that listening to parliament in the car and online, and knowing that most of the lego in the past 4 years has been passed because of Greens support, I will suspect you are once again making up a figure.

If you're counting 96% as the time when Howard was in power, just realise that a left wing party doesn't negotiate well with a party that streamed more to the right year on year.

I'd love to see an actual citation to your 96% claim, but knowing you, I won't hold my breath.

you forgot this one as well longie

the only complicated thing between the ETS and CPRS is one has the letters ET and the other has the letters CPR



freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:13pm:

The ETS was overly complex. That's why they called it a CPRS instead.

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:44pm:

you forgot this one as well longie the only complicated thing between the ETS and CPRS is one has the letters ET and the other has the letters CPR freediver wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:13pm: The ETS was overly complex. That's why they called it a CPRS instead.

OK. Explain the CPRS to us, and with detail, please.
I won't hold my breath, chum.

;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:31pm: that kind of comment makes you look astonishly uninformed and stupid. they routinely vote against almost ALL legislation. their 96% NO record is hardly that of a party that compromises and negotiates! I won't pretend that I don't know Greens record - I haven't had the chance to look over aph.gov.au. What I do know is that listening to parliament in the car and online, and knowing that most of the lego in the past 4 years has been passed because of Greens support, I will suspect you are once again making up a figure. If you're counting 96% as the time when Howard was in power, just realise that a left wing party doesn't negotiate well with a party that streamed more to the right year on year. I'd love to see an actual citation to your 96% claim, but knowing you, I won't hold my breath.

The source was anthony albanese. and what you dont seem to realise is that over 90% of legislation passes with the support of most parties and the OPPOSITION of the greens. the only time votes even enter the media is when there is dispute which is less than 10% of the time. It is only then that the greens opinion is even sought and even then, they mostly oppose it.

I just explained it

ETS vs CPRS


the common letter is S

this is why it's so complicated to understand for lefties

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:31pm: that kind of comment makes you look astonishly uninformed and stupid. they routinely vote against almost ALL legislation. their 96% NO record is hardly that of a party that compromises and negotiates! I won't pretend that I don't know Greens record - I haven't had the chance to look over aph.gov.au. What I do know is that listening to parliament in the car and online, and knowing that most of the lego in the past 4 years has been passed because of Greens support, I will suspect you are once again making up a figure. If you're counting 96% as the time when Howard was in power, just realise that a left wing party doesn't negotiate well with a party that streamed more to the right year on year. I'd love to see an actual citation to your 96% claim, but knowing you, I won't hold my breath. The source was anthony albanese. and what you dont seem to realise is that over 90% of legislation passes with the support of most parties and the OPPOSITION of the greens. the only time votes even enter the media is when there is dispute which is less than 10% of the time. It is only then that the greens opinion is even sought and even then, they mostly oppose it.

Listening to parliament, NOT JUST MEDIA, I have to disagree.  The majority of hard hitting legislation I've listened to has been passed thanks to the Greens.  As for opinions being sought, don't be stupid, all have a chance to debate and all debate.

But I won't dispute your claim further, because regardless of the fact, from personal observations, outsidfe of the media, for me what has been quite clear is that obstructions have been largely caused by the Coalition, and Fielding - that epic fool.

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

I just explained it ETS vs CPRS the common letter is S this is why it's so complicated to understand for lefties

And I rest the case that you are an epic idiot.

Thanks for sharing. ;D ;D ;D

SO FEAKIN SIMPLE but alevine would not understand

how will you then understand an economic explanation for an ETS and a CPRS?

Quote:

via alevine; Implementation does not to be hard start straight away.   You can do phased adoption implementation, where you start off with small, and gradually build it up.  Takes longer, but in this case, when there is a valid argument that not all our trade partners have a Carbon Tax, it would result in a lot less pain. Greens need to realise this, and when they do, and pass the Carbon Tax, then we can actually move forward, and I can bet in 20 years time we'd be laughing at the comments coming from the conservatives, just like we always laugh at comments coming from conservatives about the doom and gloom.

"...there is a valid argument that not all our trade partners have a Carbon Tax, it would result in a lot less pain..."

alevine, at least you admit the extra costs of the Tax/ETS will be detrimental to the economy - there's many out there like Bob Brown living in a fantasy world talking of all the extra jobs there will be making highly priced 'green' products for export.. ::)


"...pass the Carbon Tax, then we can actually move forward..."  Move forward to what ? ...move forward to the Emissions Trading Scam so the banks and traders can get their cut while wreaking the country.. :-?


"...comments coming from conservatives about the doom and gloom..." Comments like the fact we are living through a mining boom bubble and the country is in debt.. :-?  Where has all the money gone ? ...Blown on useless windmills and solar panels. We have several hundred years of coal researves, we shouldn't be wasting money on useless feel-good trinkets...






.

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:06pm:

SO FEAKIN SIMPLE but alevine would not understand how will you then understand an economic explanation for an ETS and a CPRS?

I'm not the one saying it's simple. You are.  Surely if it's that simple you can explain it to all here, in layman terms, but without losing the detail?

Flying Binghi wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

Quote: via alevine; Implementation does not to be hard start straight away.   You can do phased adoption implementation, where you start off with small, and gradually build it up.  Takes longer, but in this case, when there is a valid argument that not all our trade partners have a Carbon Tax, it would result in a lot less pain. Greens need to realise this, and when they do, and pass the Carbon Tax, then we can actually move forward, and I can bet in 20 years time we'd be laughing at the comments coming from the conservatives, just like we always laugh at comments coming from conservatives about the doom and gloom. "...there is a valid argument that not all our trade partners have a Carbon Tax, it would result in a lot less pain..." alevine, at least you admit the extra costs of the Tax/ETS will be detrimental to the economy - there's many out there like Bob Brown living in a fantasy world talking of all the extra jobs there will be making highly priced 'green' products for export.. ::) "...pass the Carbon Tax, then we can actually move forward..."  Move forward to what ? ...move forward to the Emissions Trading Scam so the banks and traders can get their cut while wreaking the country.. :-? "...comments coming from conservatives about the doom and gloom..." Comments like the fact we are living through a mining boom bubble and the country is in debt.. :-?  Where has all the money gone ? ...Blown on useless windmills and solar panels. We have several hundred years of coal researves, we shouldn't be wasting money on useless feel-good trinkets... .

All reform comes with some level of pain that is felt by someone in the community. It is a fact. I'm simply saying to minimise it you don't go out with a complete hard-hitting implementation.   But that does not mean that it is going to be detrimental to the economy. That's just another wives tale constantly brought up by conservates such as yourself who do nothing but attempt to scare, without having much knowledge about the issue.

ANd yes, move forward to a market mechanism that ALL leading economists have stated is the best way to transform the economy into low-carbon.

As for the rest ,well, you've proven my point about the doom and gloom, and I'm sure as hell will be saving this to laugh at in 5 years time.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:06pm: SO FEAKIN SIMPLE but alevine would not understand how will you then understand an economic explanation for an ETS and a CPRS? I'm not the one saying it's simple. You are.  Surely if it's that simple you can explain it to all here, in layman terms, but without losing the detail?

Let's make it easy for you Maqqa: Define CPRS.  Without looking it up.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Talk about a partisan stooge.

.




Quote:

via alevine; All reform comes with some level of pain that is felt by someone in the community. It is a fact. I'm simply saying to minimise it you don't go out with a complete hard-hitting implementation.   But that does not mean that it is going to be detrimental to the economy. That's just another wives tale constantly brought up by conservates such as yourself who do nothing but attempt to scare, without having much knowledge about the issue. ANd yes, move forward to a market mechanism that ALL leading economists have stated is the best way to transform the economy into low-carbon. As for the rest ,well, you've proven my point about the doom and gloom, and I'm sure as hell will be saving this to laugh at in 5 years time.

"All reform comes with some level of pain that is felt by someone in the community. It is a fact. I'm simply saying to minimise it you don't go out with a complete hard-hitting implementation..."

Hmmm... alevine, just what is this "pain" that you invisage ?.. :-?







.

Flying Binghi wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

. Quote: via alevine; All reform comes with some level of pain that is felt by someone in the community. It is a fact. I'm simply saying to minimise it you don't go out with a complete hard-hitting implementation.   But that does not mean that it is going to be detrimental to the economy. That's just another wives tale constantly brought up by conservates such as yourself who do nothing but attempt to scare, without having much knowledge about the issue. ANd yes, move forward to a market mechanism that ALL leading economists have stated is the best way to transform the economy into low-carbon. As for the rest ,well, you've proven my point about the doom and gloom, and I'm sure as hell will be saving this to laugh at in 5 years time.   "All reform comes with some level of pain that is felt by someone in the community. It is a fact. I'm simply saying to minimise it you don't go out with a complete hard-hitting implementation..." Hmmm... alevine, just what is this "pain" that you invisage ?.. :-? .

Broken legs?

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:35pm:

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:13pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:53am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07pm: I think there is a limit to how far the greens can push this before it starts to push voters the opposite way. The amount of the tax is a non-issue. Surely it is better to have a low tax than no tax at all. They can raise the rate later. Industry compensation is also a bit of a furphy. A lot of this is protection for trade exposed industries. The alternative to this risks sending jobs and pollution overseas, where the environmental standards could be a lot lower. It is getting absurd with everyone playing politics on this one. People accuse Rudd of destroying his CPRS by pushing the coalition into a corner where they had to oppose it. This will be the second time the Greens oppose climate change legislation. The first time they could get away with because the CPRS was a bit of a monster in terms of complexity. Opposing the tax will be a lot harder to pull off. Then again, the Greens may not have much choice either. Once we have effective greenhouse legislation the drift of voters to the Greens will stop. Preventing the legislation while trying to blame it on Labor may be their only way to grow. The risk of course is that the coalition and Labor may come up with a bipartisan agreement and move forward without the Greens. If the greens do block this tax, I will be putting Labor ahead of them next election. The same argument applied to the ETS. better a tax that was low by their standards than to block it completely. it was absolutist politics and was little more than the Greens throwing a tanty. The ETS was overly complex. That's why they called it a CPRS instead. Quote: This is because most voters for Greens arent actual Greens supporters - they vote Green as a protest only and since the carbon tax is massively unpopular and everyone believes it is the fault of the GReens then they are paying the electoral price. This can be said of any party. Only a small minority of people actually support a party. Most people simply vote for whichever one they see as not as bad as the others. The reason people were protesting is because the major parties failed to do something serious about climate change. Your idea that even the left of the political spectrum suddenly rejected action on climate change once faced with the prospect of it is ludicrous. This debate has been around for long enough and been close enough to happening with the CPRS for people to know what is involved. SOmetimes your posts are thoroughly nonsensical. Ive highlighted a couple of the absurd claims you make.

Wow, you've really outdone yourself there Longy.