you guys are in la la land, the Libs would have done the same thing labor did. Labor did the same thing as very other major cestern contry did and it didn't matter who was in power.

Just look at the UK, france to number but two contries at the time run by right wing parties yet doing the same as labor.

If your beloved Tony had of been in power and done these things you would be hailing him a hero.

<< The coalition would not have produced such an obscene debt. They would not have let in 44000 illegal boat-people. >>

You are presumably right cohenite.

These are very big factors indeed in favour of the Coalition.

However, the other things that you have mentioned as positives for the Coalition are in fact negatives for our society.

Not introducing a carbon tax, not being as supportive of renewable energy as Labor, and probably not being as proactive in a number of policy areas, are negatives.

Labor is highly antisustainability-oriented. But the Coalition is even worse. This is the biggest consideration of all…… or at least it should be.

So in terms of the overall ethic / philosophy / political direction / methodology, there is very little difference between the Libs and Labs.

But all-considered, I think the Labs come out slightly in front. And the other thing to consider is that there is a far greater chance of Labor swinging more towards a sustainable future than the Coalition.

There is just no sign of anything good at all with Abbott’s mob! If he could stop the boats, that would be a huge thing in his favour. But I just can’t see it happening.

In comparison with the propganda that Alan Austin writes Anthony you are a genius. Then again dont get to big headed cause all you have to do is point out the truth. Thanks.

"And the other thing to consider is that there is a far greater chance of Labor swinging more towards a sustainable future than the Coalition."

Define "sustainable" please.

In respect of AGW and the 'science' which justifies renewable energy and "sustainability", what ever that is see my post here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

Cohenite, your paper: ‘Man-Made Global Warming WRONG - The Ten Reasons’, begs the question: why are you so hell-bent on denouncing anthropogenic global warming?

Why is it so important to you that it not be real?

The fact is; you can’t dismiss it! We just don’t know.

Despite all the things against it which you list, you can’t be anywhere near sure that it isn’t happening.

You’re not a skeptic, you’re an absolute denialist!

If we don’t know, then we should err on the side of caution. And that basically means doing what the climate-change fearers advocate.

I notice your real name on this document. So it was you who going under your real name behaved in an absolutely disgusting manner on another forum, pulling every dirty trick out of the bag that you could to shut me (and a small number of others who dared to express views opposed to yours) down and get me to leave the forum, rather than simply debate the matter. Well congratulations for that!

As for sustainability, if you don’t know what it is by now, after all our discussions on OLO, then give up, you never will!

And um…. how on earth can you have any sort of a handle on which policies are right for our future if you don’t have a clue about sustainability?

Is everything that you advocate really short-term oriented with no thought of the somewhat longer term?

It would seem that your AGW denialism and thus presumably the advocation of the continued use of fossil fuels at a similar rate of increase to what we’ve had for the last decade or so, would fit right into this short-term outlook and be totally at odds with the best longer term sustainability-oriented plan.

So, as it concerns the subject of this thread; Labor should be reaping praise for initiating the carbon tax and exhorting alternative energy sources. This really should be seen by the electorate as a big positive.

Ludwig; I am against AGW because:

1 It is wrong and bad science; the evidence that it is bad science is now incontrovertible.

2 The money diverted to AGW 'science', reneweable energies and other policies which rely on AGW being real is simply vast: 100's of billions of dollars have been wasted.

3 Science and genuine understanding of the climate and weather, a vital need for human society, has taken a black eye due to the subversion of the scientific process by AGW.

I am not a denialist; I deal with facts as best ascertained; AGW science has not supplied facts.

Define sustainability. If it is so simple it should be a doodle for you.

I despise the term actually because it gives carte blanche to the alarmists and other ideological and opportunistic AGW travellers to beat up anyone who criticises this scam; as in; 'you can't do that, it's unsustainable.'

So, what does it mean; give me a working definition, or at least your understanding of it.

If you can't define it don't expect me to respect it or it's advocates.