Peter Spencer put up an article on OLO on 27 Jan 2006, titled: ‘War on farmers’. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4089

This is a ‘must read’ article that succinctly outlines his plight. It attracted 94 comments, including 11 from me. At the time, four years ago, I expressed some support and some criticism for him. My position remains the same.

One of my criticisms was that there is not a war on farmers. Yes, Peter has copped a raw deal. But he admits in his article that his property is probably < one of the worst affected in Australia >. His situation is not typical.

<< I note that you have much to say about compensating farmers, but you ignore my point about their liability for the environmental damage they cause >>

Not ignored, just not commented on, until now: Yes it is a good point. Of course farmers should be liable for the damage they cause. Partly liable, that is. All of society that benefits from produce or export income gained as a result of that damage should be held accountable as well. Farmers shouldn’t entirely carry the can for that sort of thing.

Maybe an ETS would help straighten out the costs. But of course, it would have to be a meaningful and equitable ETS in which big business and coal mining was not exempt and the continuously rapidly increasing rate of energy consumption and pollution output generated via Rudd’s massive population growth policies was genuinely addressed. There is no chance of that happening while Rudd is PM. So we may as well forget about the whole ETS idea!

Footnote – thanks CJ for the good quality topic-oriented discussion that we are having here.

OK Ludwig so I have upset you.
Please will you go to the story in last Fridays Australian.
See it read it and know, it was his brother that told us why he is doing this.
See the threads title, one you seem intent on agreeing with.
this has nothing to do with RUDD it is about a man in financial trouble clutching at straws.
Now how many days? without food? is that possible LUDWIG?

Belly, as far as I am aware Peter Spencer does not have a brother. He has a brother in law, who would love to get the farm so he could bribe Cooma Council to give him permissiuon to subdivide it and sell it in small blocks. Peter Spencer has 20 separate titles, amd total Freehold. He has probably two million tonnes of fallen timber that the NSW Government will not let him sell. Brothers in Law can be proper bastards.

Belly unless your mate Kev pulls the States back into the Commonwealth, by instructing the Federal Police to attend every court case,and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth against the States,I think he is going to be a oncer. The second Scullin. I dont abandon a fellow I supported last election unless he has totally fallen down on the job. He has not kept many of his promises while throwing money around like a drunken sailor.

Ludwig: << Maybe an ETS would help straighten out the costs. But of course, it would have to be a meaningful and equitable ETS in which big business and coal mining was not exempt and the continuously rapidly increasing rate of energy consumption and pollution output generated via Rudd’s massive population growth policies was genuinely addressed. >>

Agreed.

<< There is no chance of that happening while Rudd is PM. So we may as well forget about the whole ETS idea! >>

I don't share your acknowledged "hatred" of Rudd, so I think it's more rational and probably more productive to pressure the Rudd government to try and get a proper ETS up, as decribed above. I'm not optimistic, but I think it's a better approach than foaming at the mouth and supporting quixotic campaigns by frootloops just because they're directed at Rudd.

While you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and emotions, I think we should agree to disagree on this issue.

While I may well have not entered it properly.
I also may have been deleted.
I did ask a question of PTB.
Peter you often tell us you represented this farmer, media identifies that person, is it you?
My post again highlighted my view conservatives have for decades, used fear threats, mud slinging, to harm to ALP when they are in government.
It worked once but not now, and surely you are fishing in a dry well trying to blame Rudd for this.

<< I think we should agree to disagree on this issue.>>

I’m not sure just what it is that you want to agree to disagree on CJ.

<<…so I think it's more rational and probably more productive to pressure the Rudd government to try and get a proper ETS up, as decribed above >>

More rational than what?

Yes of course we’ve got to keep lobbying for a sensible ETS, or whatever system might do the trick better than an ETS. But as you say, there’s no cause for optimism.

Who’s << foaming at the mouth >> ?

I have well and truly elucidated my reasons for feeling so strongly about Rudd. I can't recall you coming back and countering them at any point. You’ve even let my comments to that end on this thread go unaddressed, as I pointed out yesterday.

Given that you are not normally one to let things go that you disagree with, I reckon you must essentially agree … and therefore I have to wonder why you don’t detest Rudd as well.

<< …supporting quixotic campaigns by frootloops just because they're directed at Rudd. >>

Huh?

Presumably your < frootloop > is Peter Spencer (and not me!?). While I disagree with some of his views, I’ll maintain that his core concerns are rock solid and well worth making a stand over.

You haven’t commented on my points about the constitutional conflict and basic principle-of-law violation inherent in the government locking up some peoples’ vegetation and hence livelihoods, in a very uneven manner, without any means of evening it out for those most severely affected by way of some form of compensation.

This is huge part of Peter’s gripe. It alone is more than sufficient justification for his stance.

I think that you are being far too unkind in blanketly condemning Peter Spencer.