Bonmot,

I reviewed AC's recent opinion pieces, and there is a definite labor bias.

How's this for confusing:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-says-pm-has-no-climate-credibility-20110725-1hvy6.html

Until the hung parliament Juliar was advocating a direct action plan. It would appear that the only reason to break her promise to the voters was to get the vote of the greens.

As for the direct action plan, remember that the carbon tax 0f $23/t as stated in the productivity report is not high enough to motivate the change over from coal to gas ($40/t required) and that the vast majority of the emissions "reduction" will be achieved by buying carbon credits from over seas.

Real emissions are set to grow by 5.5% from today's figures and be 13% higher than in 2000.

Of the remainder of the reductions, the vast majority will be achieved by the $10-13bn allocated to the Bob Brown bank for direct action on renewables.

To sum up very roughly the reduction effect by 2020:
60% by buying carbon credits from shonky 3rd world dealers
30% by direct action
10% by the increased cost of energy called the carbon tax.

Pericles,

As for the endless deceit that is coming from the "Real Julia", I don't think she is worthy of any level of respect. She has pushed the envelope as to how double dealing and dishonest a politician can be.

Juliar it is.

'Juliar it is.'

Amen. As was The Lying Rodent. And as is the Mad Monk.

Precious much Pericles?

Is it because she's a woman per chance?

'Shadow', that was excellent - a new thread was started and approved 5 mins after the challenge, well done.

You still haven't addressed the topic of this thread, in this thread. Now I know why, you still 'bait-n-switch'.

.

@ Houellebecq

>> This is how the system works. The governmnet is there to judge (They ARE THE GOVERNMENT) and you lot are obsessed with the opposition? I just don't get it. <<

Obviously not - by all accounts, Tony Abbott will be leading the next Government in a landslide.

@ Ludwig

>> Where is this country heading? <<

Indeed.

@ morganzola

>> it's better to stick with facts, rather than making it up as you go. <<

Try telling that to Tony Abbott - flip-flops from day to day, week to week.

@ Lexi

I'm going to have to ponder your substantive comments more Lexi, thanks.

@ Poirot

>> The fascinating aspect here is how a person of his (Abbott's) calibre has managed to rise to the leadership of his (any) party. The fact that he is at present "rated" as the preferred Prime Minister says something about the reactionary nature of the Australian electorate - don't you think? <<

Absolutely. It bothers me that 'most' Australians are beguiled by neo-conservativism at the time when the Labor Party is the most (liberal) conservative it ever has been - speaking of which;

@ Hasbeen

>> Didn't bother reading it, after all it was more ABC, [Labor media arm] rubbish. <<

Still got your head in the sand and your feet in the mud - a 'clayton's sceptic' by any other name.

@ Pericles

On the contrary, this is very much about Tony Abbott ... there is a very good chance that he will be our next PM.

I can't see our political system changing anytime soon but fwiw, I agree - a pox on it all.

cont'd

Cont’d

@ sonofloin

>> Abbott said there is wiggle room if not in hard copy <<

Good point - thing is, he won't hard-copy. Ever wonder why? Could it be that he just doesn't know, or they haven't got the capacity (yet), or that you just can't put 'negative' things down on a policy paper?

Nope, much easier to spread uncertainty and doubt and blame the other guy.

@ Peter Mac

Well said!

@ mhaze

What is the definition of "elite" for journalists? Is there one definition for Andrew Bolt and another for Annabel Crabb?

>> But they are from the experts so they are, by default, true, ok. <<

No, not ok - but he has to work with Treasury if/when he gets in. He's trashed them already ?!

>> And clearly Abbott should just accept the science. But which science? <<

Science is science. You are asserting supercilious statements to vacuous opinions.

>> The one that told us we were all doomed by accelerating sea levels rises? (rises decelerating!). And never mention the cooling in past decade. <<

Running out of space, see here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356#213796

and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356#213800

@ individual

>> If you lot think this Annabel makes sense then you're beyond help. She is so academic that just a single, accidental thought of reality would knock her out. <<

Indy, just because you can’t understand her doesn’t mean she doesn’t make sense. Do you have a particular point she makes that you can counter?

Why do you watch ‘Insiders’ Indy, unless it is to broaden your perspective?

bonmot,

'Obviously not - by all accounts, Tony Abbott will be leading the next Government in a landslide.'

A week is a long time in politics. How long is 2 years? Polls schmolls. It's noise. The problem with governments is they have no balls. The Howard governmnet had some dreadful polls, but they held their nerve, didn't self-implode and won the polls that count. This is the test for the ALP. Time will tell.

BTW, you seem to be under the impression that what an opposition leader says in opposition bears some relevance to what they will do in governmnet. I don't agree. They're two completely different ball games.

I judge the incumbents, and pay no mind to the supposed alternative. Talk is cheap, it's easier and more accurate to judge actions. I am one who votes governments out. They either pass or fail, based on their actions. If they pass (a modest requirement) I wont obstruct them in continuing.

I see no problem with continually voting governments out election after election until one lot proves themselves worthy. Getting all hung up on the alternitive is the mistake NSW has made over the last 8 years.

Good points Houellebecq and worth considering. Thanks.