The opposition to the Carbon Tax is nothing to do with compromise. The electorate generally doesn't like a new tax. When Howard introduced the GST he almost lost the election and the GST was balanced out with income tax reform.

The Carbon Tax is plagued with dodgy numbers. Firstly the compensation is illusory. There is no taxation indexation for years to come and bracket creep will make everyone worse off. The government also talked about raising the tax free threshold while ignoring changes to the Low Income Tax Offset that cancelled those changes.

The electorate is wisely skeptical about any new tax and presenting misleading information only makes it worse.

On the issue of boat people, the government simply doesn't have the numbers. Gillard has to do a deal with Abbott or the independents and there is little point bringing legislation to parliament unless there is broad support for it. Gillard refused to accept the Coalition amendments so the bill was not passed.

I reckon your analysis is pretty spot on James. Totally agree with your statement:
'The policies of the Gillard Government are not as bad as they are made out to be. The carbon tax takes a step to address climate change, but avoids damaging the economy. The Malaysian Solution was an attempt to stop the boats while engaging in a South-East Asian regional framework'.

Re the carbon price I'm one who is not happy because I reckon there are too many exemptions;(by the way the previous CPRS was to start off with a tax too; little difference so the claims fo 'lies' are nonsense). But I accept there has to be a compromise; that is what politics is about.

Because the nation tends to be polarized on the two issues you talk about, few are really happy. But I hope the majority wakes up before the next election that Gillard, like her persona or not, is actually doing a good job of getting a workable compromise on these issues and that is all any of us can hope for. I'm sure thankful we don't have the far right or left's version of utopia on either.

This is what was always going to happen with a hung parliament. Gillard shows a lot of strength. Abbotts approach is all frustration, and denial at any cost to Australia.

Come on you lot, call it as it is.

Anyone can dictate Gillard's policies, for the cost of a pillow slip.

That is a pillow slip on a pillow in the lodge.

Offer her that, & you have what ever it is you ask, no matter how stupid, or bad for Oz.

We've got the cheapest PM a pillow slip can buy.

The independants claim to any credibility has gone down the toilet. To hink Mr Oaksott had the audacity to claim he supported open and accountable Government. He actually did it with a smirk on his face. If nothing esle this Government has lifted hypocrisy to a level far beyond anything seen or heard of before.

And the biggest compromise is to every principle she ever pretended to stand for.

Her credibility, her honesty and her integrity are all completely compromised.

"If most people are going to be better off, why did the poll produce this result?"

Easy, because they don't believe they ARE going to be better off. Because they have been systematically fed falsehoods on this issue for several years now, and every time one is discovered a new lie is cooked up in record time and served up to take its place. Because the scientists have their snouts in the trough for the first time in decades, and they're not going to relinquish their position in a hurry, so we can expect to hear a lot more lies before it happens.

And because taxes in general are bad. They hamper the economy and reduce choice. They pass our money through the hands of people who have already demonstrated their total incompetence to handle it.

Like they say about diamonds: paying for a tax is forever.

If Julia Gillard were to spend a week as a barmaid she'd very quickly realise her erroneous perception of real life. I'd say, get Julia into a real job for a few weeks & she'd probably come up with some sensible policies. I don't like the chances of this happening though.

...And why fail to mention the overnight decimation of a $350m dollar live cattle trade, a move made to appease the "vegetarian latte" set?

James,

it's your type of spin that everybody except the 'die-hard' labor voters has woken up to. The government's failures and the dysfunctional 'blame Tony' tactic are all too obvious. It's all being absolutely rejected. I think even many of the 'die-hards' know as well but are just to loyal to walk away from the dishonesty that characterises today's 'whatever it takes' labor party.

If Mr Rudd can learn his lessons, I believe, his return as Labor Party leader and Prime Minister would indeed be beneficial not only for Labor Party but for Australia.

beneficial not only for Labor Party but for Australia.
Andreas Berg,
I cannot fathom how you can still state something like this after all the evidence played out before us.
I'm sure I'm not Robinson Crusoe when I say I simply don't believe I could afford another leftie experiment like that. Australia doesn't have the luxury of time to wait for the ALP to learn their lessons, it simply takes too long & costs too much.

This is quite a fair assessment of the current government's predicament.

Any suggestions that Ms Gillard was dishonest about the carbon tax is just ludicrous.

Labor went to the election with a no carbon tax policy.

Neither party won the election out-right so the policy was neither accepted nor rejected by the electorate. There is therefore no obligation to stick to a policy when there was clearly no mandate given FOR that policy. He government had every right to reassess a policy that was clearly not fully endorsed by the electorate.

Besides, Gillard's supposed dishonesty pales in comparison to the lies and deception that riddled the Howard/Costello years.

I actually wish Abbott had managed to form a minority government with the independents after the election last year.

Can anyone see that actually working as effectively as the current situation? Gillard would also be much more constructive as opposition leader than Abbott ever could be. Her vocabulary, after all, is broader than "no".

Trashcanman,

Labor went to the election with a no carbon tax policy.

Then Gillard made a public promise to the voters

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"

Unless I am mistaken, she is introducing a carbon tax under the government that she is leading. This makes her a liar. This is not just a policy back flip but a broken promise.

Considering that only some independents did not go to the election with a no carbon tax platform, there was a clear "no carbon tax" mandate.

Shadow Minister,

There is no mandate either way if there is no choice for voters to go one way or the other. There was no mandate on this issue. There was no mandate on any issue from this election, except perhaps for there to be a second election with better options (Turnbull and Rudd, for example).

Without a mandate on anything, Gillard had to a: negotiate with the Greens and independents (who were elected by the people too) and b: follow advice given to her from experts.

Now the amount of economists who support the carbon tax is more than double that of those who oppose it, and is four times that of those who support Abbotts direct action plan.

The number of relevant scientists who support the need for action against climate change is 97 x the amount who oppose it (2% are undecided, 1% against). So obviously action should be taken.

At the end of the day, with no mandate for her "no carbon tax" policy, combined with expert advice and political necessity, Gillard has done what had to be done.

She broke a promise, I guess you're right. It must have been a "non-core promise" I suppose. That's ok isn't it?

Trash,

You are grasping at straws. The issue of mandate in common usage is based on you getting votes on your policy platform. Labor's votes were in part based on its no carbon tax policy. That 145 of 150 elected MPs were elected based on a no carbon tax policy, there is most definitely no mandate for a carbon tax.

As for core and non core promises, when Juliar and Whine Swan nail their colours to the mast in a public announcement, that is as a core promise as you can get.

Juliar broke a core promise, and how ever you try and white wash it, the voters are not going to forget.

the lies and deception that riddled the Howard/Costello years.
Trashcanman,
I can't recall any, could you please state one ? Deceit & lying are an ALP trait as far as I'm aware.

Well, individual, it would seem you have been well deceived by them.

Trashcanman

'Now the amount of economists who support the carbon tax is more than double that of those who oppose it, and is four times that of those who support Abbotts direct action plan.'

Tis is somewhat in doubt as only some economists have answered the limited question: What is more cost effective, a Carbon Tax or direct action to cause a change in energy usage.

The question of whether the market should decide or should Government impose a solution to reduce global warming has never been asked.

I think you'd find no economist would support a carbon tax imposed by government, except good old Saul Easlake and even he'd have to take a very deep breath and close his eyes if he decided to support such.

And if you are going to use numbers of people in support of a policy then you'd have to agree only 26% of Australians still support Labor's position and nearly 70% support the coalition's position on carbon tax.

'The number of relevant scientists who support the need for action against climate change is 97 x the amount who oppose it (2% are undecided, 1% against). So obviously action should be taken.'

Since when is science decided by majority vote? Science isn't a democratic process.

'It must have been a "non-core promise" I suppose.'

It was a core promise and you shouldn't assume anything about the dysfunctional Rudd/Gillard Government. It's erratic and unpredictable.