@ Lexi,
<< Unless we pull our socks up it has been suggested in the past that we could be heading to become a third world country>>

You’re joking aren’t you Lexi ?

The carbon tax will effectively impose additional costs on our industries, making them less competitive with their overseas rivals, many of whom though much dirtier and more dangerous than ours --- have ( unbelievably! ) been exempted under agreements like Kyoto.

No, there is more danger of us falling to third world status from some of the other keystone capers of our present govt than not having a carbon tax.

And how genuine can the Julia sets concerns about the environment be, when they introduce a rooftop solar scheme –but when it becomes * too popular* they scaled it back!

Who is playing politics, eh?

There should be no plebiscite on this question . There is no constitutional requirement for one as the Constitution is not being amended . If this Abbott demand is conceded , there is no reason why any Opposition cannot demand a plebiscite for any future proposal with which the Opposition does not agree .

Governments are elected [ even if they are in a minority in Parliament ] to make decisions which can be supported by a majority of the Parliamentary members . It is an abdication of responsibility for a government to seek approval through a plebiscite .
In California about 20 years ago , a " proposition " to amend their constitution was passed , so that there can be no tax increases unless the proposed increase is approved by a vote of the electors . As a result , law enforcement and public services are starved of funds and California faces bankruptcy .

Any proposed tax will always be unpopular and the shock jocks will inflame fear and resentment by enough voters to prevent it being approved .

It is interesting that reactionaries , like Abbott , never demand a plebiscite before Australian troops are sent to fight foreign wars and they did not have a plebiscite when 20 year old non - voters were conscripted to serve in the armed forces at the time of the Vietman War .

I am confident that the introduction of a carbon pricing mechanism will cause less damage to the economy than Mr. Abbott's continuous negative campaign of gloom and doom.

Mr. Abbott is creating in the community the perception that things are bad and people are afraid to spend.

Talking down the economy should be condemned by all.

Belly “We have forgotten, Tony Abbott his team here, unlike my self, have not once, not in one post,seen past the fraud that is Tony Abbott.”

When anyone considers the statement above and the lying, scheming fraud, which is this Gillard charade, passing itself off as “government”

I am reminded of a biblical quotation for Belly

Matthew 7:3

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Regarding “Col being himself, snarly passing for comments.”

I would point out, I have managed to make comment on your post without attacking you in any way.

Following on from a recent thread where some questioned my manner of response I will point out that -

You could have commented on what I posted without the gratuitous addition of words like “Col being himself, snarly passing for comments.”

But instead of maintaining some level of respect for fellow posters you immediately get “stuck in”

Trust me Belly, if you want that sort of "combative" debate I am game for it

The point I am making is

For public reference and the observation of others, If I do decide to “respond in kind” it will be acting in “response” to what you have initiated

I suggest you do your very best and try and lift your game

Jaylex “It is interesting that reactionaries, like Abbott”

As a reactionary, I would point out

there is some merit in staying put where one is, when the future as promoted by “activists” is merely some socialist nirvana dream, without substance, which exists only “out there”, in the wilderness.

If you want to find it, do feel free to leave… but do not attempt to drag me with you

Well, I have to write something in defence of Julia , Not for a reason other than to name and target a truism ; -

I would not perceive any such notion here that anyone actually thinks that Julia has the soul monopoly control of pathological lying , and singularly mastered the art of Political Ledgermain to defend the public interest and treasury , or to further the welfare of a nation other than that which exist of the Political absorption to the State and Federal Bureaucracies , of the political competition and fractured Ideological to form one Whole State conglomerate, That be Their Chimera at societies expense while we rot in hell.

Check the State and Federal Salaries Bill; The Non Productive sector is costing more than the Productive can produce.

Of course They Lie and cheat, for if the truth was to be at the forefront and social interest was the actual goal , and not this abstract Machiavellianism to preserve political power and wealth that they never have an right to claim at any expence what so ever.

Julia is only acting as a representative of the Omnipotent STATE; So give here a break.

Col Rouge,

A carbon tax, if implemented now, and if accompanied by means to help
people reduce their carbon footprint, will undoubtedly cause some
transitional difficulties, but we have coped with bigger change in our time, such as the GST. It's easy to stir up fear of change, but deffering the inevitable change is cruel.

Ian McAuley wrote in his article (I've given the link previously):
"Tony Abbott's budget reply was visionary - a vision of Australia 10 or 20 years from now, left behind by the rest of the world, as we progress from prosperity, through economic complacency and finally into the torpor of stagnation - Asia's "South America."

"The essence of Abbott's economics is to sustain and expand the Howard government's middle-class welfare - which the Gillard government has done no more than trim a little - and to achieve a budget surplus raising taxes."

"Mathematically, that means there would have to be deep cuts in all other areas of government spending - health, education, transport, security and all those other public goods which provide material benefits and strengthen our economy. If we are to compete in a tough world we need to invest in education, public health, infrastructure, environmental repair and industry adjustment - but these public investments would be sacrificed to sustain the Howard-Abbott welfare system."

According to McAuley, Mr Abbott, "presented no policies to transform the economy away from its dependence on resource extraction, no plans to share more widely the returns from mining, and no more than a token investment in broadband which would leave Australia in the technological slow lane. While other countries live off their wits and
application of technology, we would live for a few more years of our depleting natural assets, using middle-class welfare to hide our economic decline. Few countries take such a foolish path; It's not dissimilar to the path taken by Argentina under the populist Peron Government, which saw a country that once matched Australia's prosperity slide into poverty."