Am I the only person flummoxed by this analysis? No one won the election. No party has a mandate for its program.

That left two options. All parties could stick to their platforms with an inevitable early return to the polls. It would have been interesting to see how the Australian population would have reacted to that display of politician rejection of the decision of the 'umpire' (read voters). Labor chose the alternative - compromise their platforms in the awareness that they had not been supported by the majority of voters.

Arguments that Labor are in bed with the Greens ignor the reality that the Liberals have the power to play a constructive role in government, preventing the excesses of the greens from making it to legislation. Yes I will consider the positions taken by Labor and the Greens in those compromises. But I will also consider the wisdom of supporting a party who are not prepared to accept the umpire's decision through constructive compromise towards outcomes in the national interest.

Greg Burra NSW

When ex PM John Howard told the nation that country shopping asylum seekers were tossing their children overboard, in order to force Australian navy personel to take them to Australia rather than turn their boats back, every left wing journo in Australia shreiked and frothed at the mouth that the PM was "lying."

Working themselves up into a frenzy of self rightous apoplexy, they damned Howard to hell and back for "lying" to the electorate and therefore "stealing" the election, which he won comfortably. Books were written about it. It was mentioned every night on ABC news, along with the usual tears for Mamdouth Habib, Davis Hicks, Cornelia Row, and detention centre inmates.

Given the circumstances under which the ex PM was misinformed by the navy (which admitted it had screwed up), reasonable people considered the whole episode a storm in a teacup.

Now, please note the difference in reportage now that the present PM, that daaaahling of the left wing, Julia Gilliard, has just been caught out by the public in what he self evidently a barefaced lie. Not a peep from the left wing members of the Fourth Estate who have averted their eyes and who have suddenly remembered that they have a pressing appointment, somewhere.

No "she STOLE the election by telling a lie!" No books. No endless repetition on the ABC.

If left wing journos wonder why the electorate do not trust them, and why ordinary people prefer to listen to the so called "shock jock" radio, then they had better look critically at their obvious penchant for outrageous double standards.

it does seem strange juliar putting out soo much
to the greens so early in the relationship

i supoose it meshes with her gift to the us joint houses
that in her friend down under ..they will allways find a willing partner for war...[and as an afterthought ..piece 4 peace]

it was sad to watch her groveling
before less than 20 percent of the house
and spending [wasting] her time teaching footy balls
to the leader of the freeworld...[thought there would be more pressing issues to talk about]

also noting her change of stance re the air cover over libia
sems she has been debriefed about how israel feels about that issue

[as we all should realise by now by the fact isreal has recruted 50,000 africans to the libian dic-traitors forces..'loyal to the traiter'.. doing favourable deals with israel][just like egypts former leader..gave cheap gas to the same appartheid state]

its funny how her own mouth betrays her
but ..by her works
[or rather that she choses to NOT do..
is she able to be con-demmed..]

she is an embarrisment
especially down under..[if thats below the belt]
tell her to get off her big fat buttt and stop serving special intrests

give us details how much this new tax shall reap in
or how much it will cost...or how much
egsactly who shall be getting

isnt it supposed to be the poluter pays
so how come any poluter gets compo?

or just how much
is rupert running things
or who pays the faceless men

with who..is the red ..in the bed

lawyers swear loyalty to the british law society
[ie has sworn loyalty to a foreign power..]

thus is ineligable to even stand for govt..
let alone serve the multinationalistic duel passport holding boys club

or coach footyball to obama
let alone babble-on about veginamite

as cath or kim would say
or the con..fruiter-or..[how embarrisment]

its funny [julia gets 20 percent]

yet
More Than 50% of U.S. Senate
to Attend AIPAC POLICY CONFERENCE

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/03/more-than-50-of-u-s-senate-to-attend-aipac-policy-conference/
By: Elias

You gotta know
that the U.S. Congress
will be there too
They must go
as their hands will be out taking cash bribes
with their blackened hearts spilling with no shame as they send our billions earned by the sweat of each American to a land far far away that has no consequence to the everyday welfare of Americans...

but fully controles media war
and so much more
http://www.jewwatch.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lFHaIgCDE4
http://www.americanussr.com/
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14262

Video Documentary
"Lifting the Veil"

(exposes the scam
of the two party system)

VIDEO
http://metanoia-films.org/compilations.php
"Lifting the Veil is the long overdue film that powerfully, definitively, and finally exposes the deadly 21st century hypocrisy of U.S. internal and external policies, even as it imbues the viewer with a sense of urgency and an actualized hope to bring about real systemic change while there is yet time for humanity and this planet.

See this film!"

Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The
Government HOPES You Never Learn!
http://whatreallyhappened.com

Kevin Rudd had negotiated an ETS with the Coalition under Malcolm Turnbull: then the coalition under Abbot walked away from the ETS that had been negotiated. Then Julia among others told Kevin to dump the ETS (a terrible political error as it meant that Kevin was seen as being without any integrity), then Kevin was dumped due to low polling, then there was an election where Julia promised that if elected there wouldn't be a carbon tax. Julia didn't win the election: no-one did. This result (a hung parliament) was largely seen to result from voter's disgust at both parties for not getting on with some policy to reduce carbon emissions. Julia clearly got this message from voters, and she managed to negotiate with the greens and some independants to retain power. From July, the Greens will have control of the Senate. The Coalition is bleating that Julia is in a form of coalition with the Greens, particularly on carbon reduction policy. Well of course she is: but it's not only because of the electoral outcome: it's because the Coalition have removed themselves from having any real influence on this issue. All they can now do is carp from the sidelines. Voters' message to Julia at the last election was to just get on with a carbon reduction policy. NZ has had an ETS for several years now, with very little effect on their economy. It is several years to the next election: perfect timing to get a carbon reduction policy in and working, so people will see by the next election that it's not going to have much effect on ordinary people, only on the behaviour of the most carbon polluting industries, which is the point of such a policy. In the meantime, like with the mining tax, we have the vested interests bankrolling the carping. After the appalling mining tax backdown which has the cost the government future billions in income, this time the government is unlikely to respond to vested interests, particularly this far out from an election.

Thanks for that Johnj, I really do love a good fairy story, & boy isn't that a good one.

I often wonder if you people tell these stories to try to convince yourselves, or the real people.

You don't have to look too closely at the polls to see that Julia isn't being told by the electorate that she should introduce a carbon dioxide tax. No sirree . It's that bastion of democracy Bob Brown who is pulling her strings there mate.

It must be quite a sight, our Julie rolling over for Bob, with all four feet in the air to get her belly scratched.

I really like that attempt to start a rehabilitation of Rudd. That he was "seen" to be without integrity does sound better that was proven to be so, which is of course the fact. Are the power brokers thinking of trying to recycle him? That would be a laugh.

If you get yourself a good editor, you could have a great future writing fiction.

jonj you ignore the fact and the timming
of the change of policy..

there was clear FRAUD in the numbers
there was deliberated changing of numbers

there was real reasons for changing policy
this allways was horwards sceme..[encouraged by turncoat
[turning spin into bull]..to trade in carbon credits

picked up by rudd...[the howard plan]
then juliar and the faceless men decided it couldnt be sold
so dropped it...[till after the election]

now its still the.. howard/bull-turn plan
with a fixed price to underpin the price
before letting the carbon traiter's
mates of mr[turn bull into spin]
and spin into a nice new tradable commodity

that will fix nothing
yet supposedly tax 36 billion from the poluters
to subsidize the self same poluters..

why a tax
to compensate the ones being taxed?
how insane is that?

[if you think the poor are getting any of it
..lets hear your proof]

[use your real name to prove
your certainly who you claim to be]

thing is we are being conned..[again]..by the ju-liar
and howard and turncoat plan
..to get a new commodity tax

read your damm electricty bill
[it has allready got how much carbon *YOU USE on it]

the only uncertainty is HOW MUCH PER TON
$25 wasnt enough for the greens ..last time

i hear it will start* at 36$..ton
but will soon go as high as the market-FORCES
[and limited supply ...sends it up to]

and guess who will be paying...
regardless of how much it goes up to?

or loose your power supply
or loose your car

remember this gas is in bread
in coke..[softdrink]..in your bubbly chocolate
is in your breath..is emited by your burnt snags

everyone using electicty or petro fuel
or just breathing produces it
only producers will be taxed?

its ok for the rich[big poluters]
they will pass it on

it will increase inflation
and in the end ...only the poor will pay
the rich just increase their prices[inflation]
and get govt bailouts..compensation...[NAME WHO GETS WHAT]

use specific prices
the working numbers

its loose/loose

then the guilt adverts begin
about how you going broke is good
how mss couragous and the carbon traiters..saved the world

this tax will raise billions..[46 billion per annum
is the working number]

thus no numbers are to be released...NOW
how can we have any TRUE DEBATE..without knowing the real numbers

so m/rabbit uses the old numbers
that wernt big enough last time
they are conservative..

this hidious sceme
is serving the money men
to get a new carbon credit trading floor price
who's floor price will be set initally by govt malfeasance

then BY..*market forces..
[and an ever lower carbon limit..
will set the new carbon price...

the sky is the limit]

yet carbobdioxide
is ONLY ONE greenhouse-GAS
TAX them all..or none

especially methane
[from home greenies composting and mining]
and nitrous oxide from farming..

recall cfc's..[the ozone hole]

in a few years..
GUESS WHO IS NEXT?

someone shopuld write a question for qanda
juliar gilliarhard is on tonight

re methane
or nitrouse oxide

the landline program,
reported on the greenhouse polutant nitrous oxide
[300 times worse than co2]

it might be on this link
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3162720.htm

if not it will be on this one
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3162717.htm

anyhow about one third of all nitrogen
applied to farms gets turned into nitrous oxide..
[300 times worse per part ..than one part of co2]

there followed this report
with a guy who talked sense re carbon tax etc

he revealed some scary info..scary as in
it costs 20 trillion to remove .0001 percent of co2
so clearly taxing it ..is of no use whatsoever

thus the tax is a fraud..a clear scam

he said we would be bettter off
putting our money into research..
to find alternatives..

this would require less than we are wasting on solar scams
and the solar hotwater subsidies..that do little or nothing

only needing of arround a billion per year
not the 35 to 46 BILLION the tax will rake in

this link links to part one
also interesting
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3156370.htm

these links deserve their own topic
or at least answer ...by the red devil..
[with huge hips and narrow shoulders..and faceless buddies]

extracted from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

leaving aside the damage to the landscape,
nobody is really sure how much carbon is being released by the renewable energy construction boom.

We pay extra for wind power – around twice as much – because it can’t compete with other forms of electricity generation.

Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers.

If they don’t, they pay a fine instead.


There’s a simple beauty about RO for the government. Even though it’s defined as a tax, it doesn’t come out of pay packets but is stuck on our electricity bills.

That has made funding wind farms a lot easier for the government than more cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

‘If you want a grant for an energy conservation project on your house,’ says Helen McDade, ‘the money comes from taxes.

Already, RO adds £1.4 billion to our bills each year to provide a pot of money to pay power companies for their ‘green’ electricity. By 2020, the figure will have risen to somewhere between £5 billion and £10 billion.

When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown added another decade to these price guarantees, extending the RO scheme to 2037, guaranteeing the subsidy for more than a quarter of a century.


‘You go to a landowner,’ McDade says, ‘and offer him what is peanuts to an energy company yet keeps him happily on his estate so they can put up a wind farm, which in turn raises ordinary people’s electricity bills.

There’s a social issue here that doesn’t get discussed.’

By 2020, environmental regulation will be adding 31 per cent to our bills. That’s £160 green tax out of an average annual bill of £512. As costs rise, more people will be driven into fuel poverty.

It’s a view shared by his successor Chris Huhne, who says inflation due to RO will be effectively one per cent. Britain’s low-income families, facing hikes in petrol and food costs, will hope he’s right.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1GcSKFFIK