http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-10/vote-compass-reveals-uncomfortable-truths-for-both/4947384

The "disconnects" discussed by Vote-Compass analysts show there was no "mandate" on a carbon/price/tax/ETS passed by the electorate, however Abbott may have tried to pass it off as a referendum on such.

Nick Champion (comments at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/let-abbott-scrap-carbon-tax-labor-mp/story-fni6uo1m-1226716625692 ) doesn't seem to grasp that if there was a referendum about anything, it was about unity and not a carbon "tax".

Frankly, the longer carbon-pricing remains in place the longer it will do its job and the longer government will have to hold off taxing the populace in alternatively planned ways, or withhold expenditure on Direct Action et al.

Regarding climate change and mining taxes, it appears the electorate has cut off its nose despite its face in order to deliver its verdict over unity (60% preferring action over these). Note also that Abbott does not the hold the electorates trust or the high opinion of his competence he believes the election delivered.

The Opposition is no negative.

But wait a bit, it is Labor in opposition.

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear our new Government talking about mandates, I get a mental image of a nervous, well-scrubbed Christopher Pyne showing up at the Lodge with a bunch of flowers to take Tony out for dinner and a show.

Let us hope that our elected representatives are aware of the dangers of drink spiking, lest it turn into mandate-rape.

Cheers,

Tony

Abbott hasn’t got a mandate to do anything policywise! The election wasn’t a referendum on anything, other than who was the ever so slightly less unpalatable leader!

Gillard had to lie to the public, do a number of sleazy deals and ignore democracy to push through the carcon rip off. If anyone has a mandate for anything it is someone who told the truth about repealing it. The left hate democracy when it does not suite them.

The fact is, the electoral process intrinsically provides no basis for any of the commentary on what it means.

For starters, voting is compulsory. You can't build any theory of consent on that.

Secondly, the law against misleading and deceptive conduct does not apply to political parties, governments or politicians. They can and routinely do make false representations, or promises they fail to perform, and no-one has any legal remedy against them, as you do against private parties.

Thirdly, all the different policy offerings of any politician are offered as a bundle, so there's no way to know, from someone's vote that they prefer this party over that, which of their policies they agreed with and which they didn't.

Fourthly, you don't vote in a government. Everyone only votes for their local member. The formation of a government is a meta-process above the level of the electoral system, and below the level of the Constitution or Parliament. That's why political parties, Prime Minister and Cabinet were not mentioned in the Constitution. The formation of government is just a processual artefact based on whatever party has the confidence of the lower house, which in turn was based on the historical artefact of relations of the King with the Commons, which were neither necessarily executive nor legislative, before universal suffrage was ever dreamt of.

This means that the current configuration of seats signifies precisely nothing in terms of a "mandate" or legitimate expectation that other groups should agree with the proposals of the Cabinet or their obsequious followers in the lower house.

But the same argument applies to all parties. It's typical Labor hypocrisy to be trotting this argument out now that they've lost the election. In the same breath they claim the right to do it to the Liberals, and that the Senate cross-benches are unrepresentative and should be "fixed" for doing it to them.

Nice post JKJ. BTW, are you excusing Gillard for a carbon price that was borne of horse-trading towards the formation of a governing majority?

Abbott bloody-mindedly blocked any government achievement he could, and justified it any way he could, regardless of the brazen hypocrisy displayed in doing so. That is what he was known for, nothing to do with disrespecting a policy mandate, just the mandate to govern. His approach to the Malaysian and PNG solutions is an example, though he intends to employ the latter now he has won government.

Speaking of obsequiousness, so sad to see Sophie Mirabella going. Re the Senate, let it all hang out I say, and stuff the major parties. Voter beware. The states would have to get behind any change and that would be a feat.

No mandate Luciferase?

Labor under Rudd has managed its lowest primary vote for 100 years.....
The Coalition has 30 odd seats more.....

Kevin (I’m the PM and I want my forking special dinner) Rudd had less primary votes in his electorate than the Liberal candidate......

A delusional Rudd, a delusional Labor Party and certainly delusional Labor acolytes contributing to this thread.

Luci the premise of your thread is farcical. Given that, it has shades of Monty Pythons Black Knight’s “it’s only a flesh wound” plea when both his arms and legs have been chopped off.

If Abbott has to go to a DD to rid the senate of un representative grievance based senators with single digit primary votes so be it. But I don’t believe he will...he will buy support in the traditional manner

sonofgloin, Abbott could have claimed a mandate to force us all to wear burqas and go to church on Sundays, and he'd still have won because Labor lost. His carbon tax referendum was pure confection.

Let Abbott wield whatever political or persuasive power he has to achieve his ends, by all means, but do drop this policy mandate BS.

Luciferase>> Abbott bloody-mindedly blocked any government achievement he could, and justified it any way he could, regardless of the brazen hypocrisy displayed in doing so.<<

They are all hypocrites Luci...they are politicians.

Re the Carbon Tax deception.

Yesterday the data for the thickness of the polar ice was released.....thicker than the top end of the model.

Tidal readings at Fort Dennison in Sydney harbour have been lower than average for the past decade.

Australia produces less carbon emissions now than in 1975.

The carbon tax has forced manufacturers to shed labour or close down.

The money leaves Australia forever and it changes nothing except the lifestyles of those who manage it.

The carbon tax is not a green agenda, it's a bankers agenda....

Luciferase>>Let Abbott wield whatever political or persuasive power he has to achieve his ends, by all means, but do drop this policy mandate BS<<

Abbott opened his mouth before the election and said he would dump the carbon tax....he got voted in, amongst other pledges the tax was a primary policy mandate.

Gillard said prior to the 2010 there would be no tax......Gillard patently had no mandate to implement the tax but she did.

Luci, wait until Abbott is in for a while and you will have something to tear apart, they are all self serving truth benders, But current Labor is incompetent and unrepresentative of the membership because the branches don’t have a say in who gets the nod. Kev addressed that at Balmain two months back.

Have a look at the backgrounds of the ministers in Whitlam’s government:
Butchers, bakers, tradesmen, professors, small business owners, and some ex union officials.
Have a look at the backgrounds to the current lot:
Lawyers, union officials......do you think the rank and file chose them....the party was hijacked by Fabians and academics.

When you mentioned the Carbon Tax deception I initially thought you were talking about power costs going down by 70% with its repeal (you know, the same amount it supposedly went up due to the CT?)

Ludwig: you are spot on.

JKJ: much to my suprise I agree with you.

If we are to be honest about "mandates" for one policy, lets have a referendum on it.

Luciferase,>> When you mentioned the Carbon Tax deception I initially thought you were talking about power costs going down by 70% with its repeal (you know, the same amount it supposedly went up due to the CT?)<<

Yes a point worth making. Most state governments that had a financial interest in the grid failed to spend on infrastructure over the past 20 years and the incredible hike in electricity pricing is primarily due to that.

In the majority of cases the carbon tax and equivalency sub taxes have impacted on “components” of manufactured goods here. In particular chemicals and various gasses have felt the brunt. One example is a non inflammable gas used in a plethora of aerosol products manufactured here has risen by 28K per tonne. That is double, and the price of these products “doubled” last October.

I have firsthand knowledge of two small manufacturers who employed 30 plus people each last year and have a skeleton crew today because of the market turning to imported products that carry no tax. The strong Aussie dollar contributed to this, but the carbon equivalency tax was and is a major factor to making local manufacturers uncompetitive.

The carbon tax and the raft of “equivalency taxes that came with it have cost jobs and changed the fortune of tens of thousands of unskilled workers. It was never about all goods going up by 10%....the equivalency taxes on components of the product is far more damaging to the viability of manufacturing here.

Lucyface,

The generally accepted definition of "mandate" is a publicized pre election promise of the ruling party. Such as the "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" of Juliar.

Abbott has made getting rid of the carbon tax an absolute non negotiable, such that not taking action would be the equivalent of the Lie that destroyed Labor.

Given the tax's on going unpopularity, labor's resistance would be a weapon to beat it to even lower polls in the future.

No, power costs will only go down by about 10% with the deletion of the
CO2 tax.
Its main costs are what everyone who used electricity had to
add on to their invoices.

It is known as trickle down.

Labor was blamed for all power rises, and Murdoch did nothing to clarify the issue despite Labor's bleatings. It was all part of the calamity/disaster hue put on every Labor story.

Dorothy,

Now don't post lies, there was plenty in the Newscorp papers to explain the causes of power cost rises. However, note that for domestic electricity, more than 90% of the bill is for reticulation and about 8% is actually for power. For industry the proportion of power to reticulation is higher leading to a 15% power increase for small businesses to a 60%+ increase for heavy industry purely due to the carbon tax.

isn't it strange how the slimy labour/Greens and their supporters were claiming that linguistically it would be almost impossible to revoke the carbon tax. The dishonest Gillard/Wong (and sisterhood on OLO) and co consistently spruiked how it could not be done. Now instead they are being outright pigheaded in their opposition to democracy. True colours showing again.

"...60%+ increase for heavy industry purely due to the carbon tax."
You're like a dog with a bone on this. Carbon pricing, cement making and aluminium smelting, as well as the effect on competitiveness of small domestic business were dealt with, as far as I am concerned, at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5207

No, the 70% figure was in reference to domestic households, misinformation that was directly, or by ommission, allowed to run free by the Murdoch press, as well as the fact of offsetting compensation always being avoided, just to keep things simmering along.

Abbott has no mandate, only political power.

Lucyface,

Yes the issue was cleared up, and large power consumers did experience massive power increases. I do the heavy electrical engineering for a mid size manufacturing business and we suffered a nearly 50% increase in electricity prices. The really big consumers would have seen much more.

As for your lying assertion about the Murdoch press please provide an example or two. My experience is exactly the opposite.

Couldn't be bothered but, if you are, then find reference to an Abbott claim that carbon pricing is driving up the cost of power and the Newscorp media person has pointed out to him the compensatory tax provisions or that domestic power increases are much, much more largely attributable to state governments and grid extension/maintenance.

You throw the tag "lier" around too willy-nilly for someone with your track record on OLO, Shallow Minister.

I do not believe that any government in Australia has been given a mandate to impose any tax on carbon emissions. Any more than the Hawke - Keating regimes were given a mandate to deregulate the Australian economy in terms of its international exposure. De-regulation lies at the core of our current foreign trade imbalance. As a country we spend far more on imports than we can afford to pay for from our export income.

We are caught between a rock and a hard place because on the import side we can't compete with cheap labour in poverty stricken countries to supply our marketplace and on the other hand our export sector faces the same competition with cheap labour from the 90 countries which operate free trade zones. This situation creates the tension between business and labour within our country in the quest to be competitive.

All the western democracies thrived during the 45 years between the enactment of the Glass-Stegall act in the USA. which ended the great depression and its dismantling in parallel with Bretton Woods Agreement by Nixon in the 1970s.

At this time our government undermined the economic future of Australia by adopting the free market mantra and removing the control mechanisms under which Australia had previously maintained its economic autonomy. If I don't protect my property and state I would rightly be deemed a fool. The government of the day played the fool on our behalf.

Until government's of any persuasion in this country address this reality their rhetoric about growing our economy and providing employment will amount to being so much hot air. Our politicians won't admit it and our people don't understand the degree of emasculation we face daily as a country.

To get back to the tax on carbon emissions issue; doesn't it appear hypocritical that we, on the one hand tax ourselves, while at the same time we condone coal exports on a vast scale for the crumbs it provides to support our stagnant economy?
Den 71

Lucyface,

"you can't be bothered" rubbish you can't. Deliberately saying things that are false makes one a liar. You and other left whingers are trying to blame Newscorp and leadership issues for your loss, rather than labor's carbon tax lie, the poor economic management, cruddy policies, and general incompetence.

In Abbott’s victory speech he said “In three years’ time, the carbon tax will be gone…”.

Three years?

So much for it being the source of an economic budgetary crisis. If he was truly honest about it as a significant economic issue, he would also take back the compensation – otherwise it’s a source of wasted revenue.

As for having a “mandate” this is another Abbott quote from 2007– “The elected Opposition is no less entitled than the elected Government to exercise judgement and to try to keep its election commitments” - http://tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/ArticleswrittenbyTony/tabid/87/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6890/OPPOSITION-TOO-HAS-PROMISES-TO-KEEP.aspx

Abbott has a mandate only to govern, and therefore to introduce proposed legislation to Parliament.

The 46.5% who wanted someone else elected their people to oppose it. The idea that a mandate abolishes opposition is totalitarian by definition.

The election result was not a “landslide” - 53.5% to 46.5%, and that's the 2 Party preferred. The swing to the Liberals alone was around 1.8% nationally. The result showed a movement away from both parties, with Palmer bleeding off much of the coalition vote in particular.

Remember that in 2012, the Queensland LNP won 49.65% of the votes but got 80% of the seats.

Sonofgloin, if AGW is some sort of elaborate global financial hoax, why is Abbott prepared to hand out your money to polluters to reduce their emissions? Is he part of the scam too?

I would be interested to see what you think about the hole in the ozone layer, industrial pollution causing acid rain and the harmlessness of DDT – all of which were denied by the same people in the same way at the time.

I forgot to mention that Abbott promised that our power bills would immediately fall by 10% as soon as the carbon tax is removed.

If that doesn't happen I will be obliged to constantly refer to him as a liar for the remainder of the parliamentary term.

It's only fair.

You want me to "find" something that's not there, i.e. a Newscorp media-person making Tony Abbott accountable for a porky? You can't be serious.

I'd listen to Vote Compass before you any day, Shallow, on why the election was won or lost.

Back on topic, you and your coterie here can bleat about a policy mandate to your hearts' content but Abbott hasn't got one, whatever confection he tried to put on the election outcome beforehand.

Whether Labor votes for or against repeal is completely its own moral decision. Laborites like Champion may cross the floor. After trying to to persuade with unassailable logic (not his strong point) Abbott can call a double dissolution. Gillard got a lot done with fewer options.

Dorothy,

Here is the proof you were lying. 2 links that took me 30 seconds to find.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/carbon-tax-adds-fuel-to-the-ire/story-e6frgd0x-1226314891042
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/julia-gillard-to-hand-out-15bn-in-cash-to-sweeten-carbon-tax-impact/story-fn99tjf2-1226091815863

You claimed that the Australian was DIRECTLY and indirectly supporting the claim that the carbon tax was responsible for the full 70% electricity price rise. I have shown that it was neither. Either you can show that it was directly supporting this or you are lying.

TA has a clear mandate to remove the carbon tax. If Labor keeps blocking it and prices go up, TA will get more in tax, and can hang it on labor. Guess how the public will react in 2016.

Luciferase, I dont think Abbott has a mandate, but I do think he will call a DD election if labor, or the senate blocks his bill.

I say he doesn't have a mandate simply because this was not his only policy.

If it was, he would also have a mandate on his PP scheme, something that I as a supporter hope gets blocked as I think it's a stupid policy.

Thanks Shall, but where is Abbott taken to task for his porkie pies to the Murdoch media? Labor conceding the power of Tony Abbott's cost of living campaign does not mean it was honest, it was a dishonest scare campaign that was ultimately borne out to be so by the fact that the CPI rose 0.7% only due to carbon price.

Too right, rehctub.

SM,

"TA has a clear mandate to remove the carbon tax....."

Here's what Tony said in 2007:

"The Opposition is no less entitled than the elected Government to exercise its political judgement and try to keep its election commitments."

P,

I have never claimed that the opposition has to abide by the mandate the coalition received, just that it would be very foolish to do so. Given that Juliar cooked Labor's goose by promising no carbon tax and then imposing it on an unwilling public, and Dudd went to the election promising to get rid of the carbon tax, blocking in conjunction with the greens would be a gift to the coalition.

Further too, Shall, if you want to get your teeth into something the really might help to prosecute your case and that should be easy to find, where was the derision/attack/shock/horror/disaster/calamity in the Murdoch media when Abbott tried to pass off an 80% rise in a pensioners electricity bill as the result of carbon-pricing?

With astonishing audacity, he did this in parliament and still there was no Murdoch attack on his credibility or repudiation for such a brazen attempt to deceive the public. Where was Piers Ackerman going ape$*&% ? All Murdoch media did was to report parliamentary proceedings without the usual triumphal "Gotcha!" front page attack reserved for Labor.

You are a poor deluded Shallow Minister if you think Murdoch media is/was balanced, which is why you accuse anybody who has an opinion differing from yours a lier, which I think it's time GY looked into. Call me whatever you like, I accept you as you are, but your MO must be a great dissuader to newbies venturing an opinion here.

Luciferase,

I think that deserves a reprise....since it was one of Tony's A1 botch-ups:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/abbott-caught-out-on-use-of-pensioner27s-power-bill/4305908

Calling people "liars" is an old favourite here - it's what people do when they're attempting to portray themselves as holier-than-thou, and who have run out of argument and/or creative expression.

.......

SM,

I'm calling Abbott a hypocrite, not you.

Here's what he said after winning:

"In the end they all need to respect the Government of our nation has a mandate and the Parliament should work with the government of the day to implement its mandate."

Dear Luciferase,

In the interview on Ten Gillard said, "There will be no
carbon tax under the government I lead." But that's not
all she said. She ended by stating clearly that she
would, "...lead our national debate to reach a consensus
about putting a cap on carbon pollution."

Also, the day prior to the 2010 election in an interview
with The Australian Gillard stated again quite clearly that
"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism.
I rule out a carbon tax."

There was no lie. However Gillard and her ministers unwisely
chose to refer to the legislation as a "carbon tax."
They unfortunately didn't think carefully about the language
they were using.

Rob Oakeshott on the other hand understood what the Labor
government didn't. A week prior to the legislation
coming into effect he said, "Well this is where I got a
point of difference on the language from the government.
I do think an emissions trading scheme is coming in
in a week's time and we've got a fixed price period for the
first 3 years. You can't tell me if you fix the price of milk
for 3 years that you've suddenly got a milk tax.
You are fixing the price within a market."

A mandate was given to the Gillard government in 2010 to
govern, in a minority government.
The government worked with the Independents
and the Greens to pass the Clean Energy Act.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

As for Mr Abbott's claim in having a "mandate to repeal
the carbon tax?"

As one political commentator has stated:

"This was an election not a referendum."

"Governments are not given mandates on specific issues.
The Members of Parliament who are elected have a mandate to
represent their electorate and work for the good of the
country. In liberal democracies the electorate holds
governments accountable for what they do after the fact
in regular elections, rather than providing referendums
on particular policies."

"Gaining government means a mandate to govern.
Certainly governments should attempt to honour their promises,
but they also need to acknowledge they don't hold a
monopoly on ideas. That means negotiating with and engaging
the parliament and the community."

We're told that, "There are cautionary tales
for those who mistake their mandate to govern as a mandate
for any one policy in their platform."

"John Howard learned this lesson when he took full advantage
of the control he had in both houses of parliament. The
result was "WorkChoices" that effectively ended his
political career. He over-reached and paid the price."

We're also told, "The election does
not give Abbott a mandate to do whatever he pleases.
He can try to repeal the Clean Energy Act. He's the next PM
and that's his prerogative. The Senate has a mandate to
review any changes to the legislation. It just may decide
to keep the Act. That's its prerogative."

"Victory is not a rubber stamp for carte blanche
repeal and reform. It is a mandate to do what is in the
interests of the Australian people."

Lucyface,

You said "misinformation that was directly, or by ommission, allowed to run free by the Murdoch press"

That is a lie. I provided two examples where the difference between the reticulation ocst rise and carbon tax was differentiated. I could not find any article that DIRECTLY stated or implied that the cost was entirely due to the carbon tax.

No matter how much other noise you make it does not distract from the fact that YOU told a lie.

I never claimed that the Australian was balanced neither was the Age, but you still lied. It is also clear that you don't read the Newscorp papers, so all your comments are fanciful.

P,

Considering that Labor promised not to introduce a carbon tax, and then to get rid of it, Labor should try and keep its election commitments.

A see nothing in the first article to suggest anything other than Abbott was clever and his scare campaign was a good thing that worked. Where is the supposed clarification of what really drove up prices? In the second I see a reasonably factual report.

I said misinformation was directly, or by ommission, allowed to run free by the Murdoch press. This does not preclude factual reporting such as in your second article, but does include relaxed editorship of in-house opinion, such as Ackerman's, Bolt's and their peers in Murdoch media around the country, where half-truth was allowed through without correction or clarification (such as massive power price rises being due to carbon pricing.

"Directly" refers to allowing half-truths and misinformation of paid commentators to reign. "Omission" refers to the fact a hand was barely laid on Abbott over his lies, even when he told them in parliament, while Labor was pilloried at every half-chance.

Lucyface,

""Directly" refers to allowing half-truths and misinformation of paid commentators to reign"

By your own feeble definition please give one example of a paid newscorp commentator saying that the electricity price rise was entirely due to the carbon tax. I showed you where they specifically showed the split of causes of the price rises, so you charge of omission is also false.

Calling Newscorp biased is one thing, it however, gets its facts right. It might play them in a light you don't like, but the facts are correct.

Admit it you moved from the generality of bias to the specifics of calling them fraudulent. I called you out and you failed to give any reason for your lie. Admit it and move on.

Lexi, milk is a commodity, carbon is not. So to compare the two as similar is simply wrong.

To put a price on carbon is a tax, any way you look at it.

As for Gillard government having a mandate, how on earth can this be as the Gillard government did not win the election, as they did not form government in their own right.

You then said this....This was an election not a referendum."

So in your words, what was the 2010 election.

As for a mandate, I don't believe any government gets a mandate, unless they go to an election with one policy and only one, as while people may agree with some of their policy proposals, they disagree with others, his PP scheme being a prime example.

Lucyface, I lost count of the number of times power price rises were contributed to not only the carbon tax, but what was referee to as poles and wires.

Hard to work out where the news stops and the advertorial begins with many articles, but an example of what you seek, Shall, following your own feeble effort to find a smoking gun, is here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/bill-is-in-the-mail-time-to-pay-carbon-tax-piper/story-e6frezz0-1226482093400

Just where is it made clear and explicit to poor Rose by Greg Hunt or by the newspaper editor that massive electricity price rises are not due to carbon pricing?

Spare me the shrill attack, Shallow Minister, and accept that Murdoch has been in election mode for three years with truth a frequent casualty (through the likes of Bolt, Akerman and their Murdoch media counterparts in other states)and where conservative politicians are allowed to write their own press under the heading "News". What a farce.

Also of interest to some OLO readers may be Wendy Bacon's Media Inquiry submissions http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/143421/Professor_Wendy_Bacon-Part_1.pdf
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/143422/Professor_Wendy_Bacon-Part_2.pdf

PS did anybody tell Rose that elderly pensioners were overcompensated for the CPI increase due to carbon pricing?

Epic fail Dorothy.

As far as your "directly" claim is concerned you have not changed a thing as the author did not claim that carbon tax is entirely responsible which is the single worst lie.

As far as your "omission" claim is concerned you need more than one opinion piece out of thousands of articles where author did not rehash the entire costings debate. I have already provided two articles where the costings are explained, and you will have to do much better than that.

Dorothy,

I remember seeing a survey where the vast majority of people understood the causes of the electricity price rises, the real reason that it hurt labor so badly as explained by the ex ACTU secretary:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-to-blame-for-loss-says-bill-kelty/story-fn59niix-1226718930047

"FORMER ACTU secretary Bill Kelty has accused Labor of underestimating Tony Abbott for years, declaring the party's breach of trust with voters over the carbon tax was a bigger cause of its defeat than the disunity cited by senior ALP figures."

"All the other things don't matter. When that essential covenant of trust between the electorate and those who are elected is broken, it's very, very hard to rebuild."

Labor lied to the electorate. The electorate never forgot, nor forgave.

Rose's pain was ALL about the carbon tax in the article. Pathetic that Hunt stands on the shoulders of crying little old ladies to spruik his misinformation campaign, the party line "The carbon tax did it". He omitted what's really causing power price pain nationally and that pensioners were more than compensated for carbon pricing raising the CPI. NEWS! That bad, bad Labor government and its bad carbon tax is making pensioners sad. Pretty much like "Fightback", carbon pricing in the economy was easily picked off with misinformation and a very, very compliant Murdoch nedia with its own agenda.

Kelty should consult Vote Compass. The disunity proceeding from dumping Rudd was the issue, according to VC, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. A set of circumstances unlikely to be repeated, and interesting times to live through.

Just thought I'd pop this in:

The govt this week borrowed $800 million...

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-borrows-800m-whatever-2013-9

and Hockey's talking up stimulus:

http://www.afr.com/p/national/hockey_plan_for_budget_stimulus_o0xTAytvq8lNFiMiaLqFDM

Yada, yada, yada....

What the lefties need to get into their heads, the so called disunity is nothing.

To any sensible person Rudd & Gillard are equally offensive , equally guilty, & equally responsible for the loss. Which one is boss is immaterial, neither were acceptable.

They are both ratbags, so any party that had them as leaders must be one of ratbags. It was the party & it's policies that got the baseball bat, it was just nice to be able to apply it to that slime ball Rudd, while belting the lying mob he fronted out of government.

Currently Labor is half bludging over paid, under worked academics, & half lying cheating union bosses. If that is wrong, prove it by getting rid of them, Yes fat chance. The most amusing thing is that this bunch claim to have principles, What a joke.

Michelle Grattan writing in The Saturday Age, Sept. 14, 2013,
tells the story:

"Twelve days out from last week-end's election, Henry
Gallagher, a year 12 student at Tony Abbott's alma mater,
Sydney's St. Ignatius' College, Riverview, received a
message from the principal's office that a federal
politician was on the line and keen for a word.

A few weeks earlier, Gallagher had written to Abbott and
four other MPs who were educated at Riverview and other
Jesuit schools in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide, to
remind them where they came from. None had written back.

"The currently proposed solutions to the so-called "refugee
problem" by both the Labor Party and Coalition are inhumane
and unjust," the 17-year old wrote. "They betray our
national character of being large-hearted, of giving someone
a "fair-go," and of "helping the battler." They lack moral
courage and in the light of our international obligations
may be illegal."

Attached to the leter was a petition with 450 signatures, most
of them Riverview students.

The MP on the phone was Bill Shorten, the only one from
any political party to reply, and he spoke to Gallagher of his
experience at Xavier College in Kew, how students from less
privileged backgrounds influenced him, and how he had
endeavoured to apply the school's Jesuit principles to his
work as a union official and an MP.

...Gallgher was mightily impressed that Shorten had taken the
trouble to make contact. Before the conversation ended
Shorten offered Gallagher some advice, "He encouraged me to
look at politics..."

The point that was being made by this article is that
successful political parties in the future will be the ones
that encourage people to participate at the grass roots
level and in the way that they want to, rather than
having a very strict model - as is currently the case.

The recent election has shown the disengagement of society
from the political process that asserted itself on a number
of fronts, from the record informal vote of almost 6 per cent
and the success of micro-parties in the Senate.

Lucyface,

You have still completely failed to substantiate your lie about the Australian.

Most Australians are perfectly aware that the carbon tax was only partially responsible for the increase in electricity prices. They were also aware that:

a) The purpose of the carbon tax was to raise the price of power, which it did,
b) the government did absolutely nothing to address the other causes of the electricity price increases.
c) Labor promised no carbon tax, but lied and went ahead anyway.

The reticulation increase was a blow to consumers that was uncompensated, the carbon tax was the last kick in the guts when they were down.

Poirot, all we need do now is sit back and see what he does with that $800 million.

If it gets wasted, then by all means blow your trumpet, however, if it goes towards servicing labors debt, or, towards funding of labors un-funded dreams, then it will be you with egg on your face.

rehctub,

According to Stephen Koukoulas, who on the 10th September tweeted this:

"The govt borrowed $200 million today in an indexed bond tender.

The Abbott govt will borrow $800 million tomorrow with an additional $800 million on Friday".

The "additional $800 million on Friday" pertains to the link I've already put up.

So that's a fair bit of borrowing in their first week for a govt who's main platform was Labor's debt....and not the very healthy AAA economy.

P,

Government is spending abour $8bn a year just to finance the huge Labor debt over and above the huge spending programs that Labor has put in place.

TA has not even taken the wheel of government, and already Labor hypocrites are blaming him for Labor's incompetent policies.

SM,

Well yers better whip Tony out of his post-election straight jacket and put him to the grindstone.

I note Bronwyn Bishop is set to become Speaker...apparently that's seen as a "return to dignity".....(Lol!)

Here's a dram of Bronny's idea of "dignity":

http://images.watoday.com.au/2011/03/24/2248655/320_abbott3.jpg

'I note Bronwyn Bishop is set to become Speaker...apparently that's seen as a "return to dignity".....(Lol!)

Here's a dram of Bronny's idea of "dignity":

yea the sisterhood do turn on each other when they disagree. thankfully now adults are running the show.

runner,

"....thankfully now adults are running the show."

Well hadehaha!

One more time with feeling...

http://images.watoday.com.au/2011/03/24/2248655/320_abbott3.jpg

How "grown up" is that?

(Ans = "Not very")

Shallow Minister, my claim was never specifically about the Australian to which I am not a subscriber, so please point out where in the thread it is. My claim was towards Murdoch media generally.

Your challenge was not initially specifically in relation to the Australian but to Newscorp, which also owns the Telegraph. However, as your attack became more shrill and pathetic your challenge focused in on the Australian solely. I recall reading enough hardcopy Australian to be as appalled as the Labor government was with its unfair bias.

Your challenge was met with an unequivocal example which you have a gall to defend: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-to-blame-for-loss-says-bill-kelty/story-fn59niix-1226718930047

Your assertion that "Most Australians are perfectly aware that the carbon tax was only partially responsible for the increase in electricity prices." refers to the enlightened, such as you, me, and Greg Hunt. Some of us spent our time misrepresenting that to the unenlightened, including omitting the fact of compensatory measures to industry (carbon credits, for example) and households (income tax cuts, pension increases), with the aid of the Murdoch media.

Newscorp Daily Telegraph roving reporter, Greg Hunt's, article was an extreme case of misrepresentation where Newscorp "directly" (allowing a conservative politician to write the article as an unbalanced dishonest "news" piece) and by "omission" of the facts I've already stated, set out to deceive the unenlightened about the effect of carbon pricing.

It is hard to become enlightened when the majority of the media (Murdoch), which people trust for their information, keeps them in the dark with shenanigans such as I've cited, and more subtly.

"....the carbon tax was the last kick in the guts when they were down." Geez, you're incorrigible! Rose was compensated for carbon pricing. She was not compensated for any other aspect of her power bill, so you can drop the BS now, the con-job is done (its job) and dusted.

State reticulation charges are state issues. http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/12/03/why-gillard-cant-prevent-gold-plating-energy-infrastructure/

Pardon, the link to the telegraph "news" story should have been http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/bill-is-in-the-mail-time-to-pay-carbon-tax-piper/story-e6frezz0-1226482093400

Lucyface,

You are right I should not have spoken about your lie about The Australian, rather about your lie about Newscorp.

No matter how you wiggle, a lie is a lie, and you told it. If you find one article in a Newscorp paper where (to use your word) it was directly asserted that the electricity price I will retract my assertion, otherwise simply stop telling porkies.

P,

Anything is more dignified than Juliar and her speaker Peter Slipper.

Shal, you're now sounding like that knight with no arms or legs from Monty Python. Give it up, you're carved to pieces.

On Thursday, 12 September 2013 1:43:29 PM I wrote "No, the 70% figure was in reference to domestic households, misinformation that was directly, or by omission, allowed to run free by the Murdoch press, as well as the fact of offsetting compensation always being avoided, just to keep things simmering along."

You interpreted this with your usual wantonly abandon and now further re-re-redefine your challenge to, "If you find one article in a Newscorp paper where (to use your word) it was directly asserted that the electricity price I will retract my assertion...."

The Telegraph "news" article from Greg Hunt was directly allowed to run free by the Telegraph, like a real news story instead of the dishonest advertorial it was, with all its factual ommissions designed to deceive the unenlightened reader. There will be no statement by Newscorp that carbon pricing was the sole cause of power price rises, only the very strong implication (bordering on assertion) that it is in the example you challenged me to cite. This is not a case of bias, but of deceit by Hunt in cahouts with Newscorp, using the tears of little old ladies to give it the emotional element to boot. Disgusting "journalism".

If ever there was a wiggling wriggler, Shallow Minister" it is you I don't expect you to retract anything, you're not built that way.

The carbon tax did it, oh yeah.

Dear Luciferase,

Here's a couple of links that may be of interest:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/lies-damned-lies-and-australias-future-20130906-2taav.html

http://www.news.com.au/cost-of-living/tactics-turn-on-electricity-bills/story-fnagkbpv-1226493348601

Dorothy,

You have in no way supported your lie that Newscorp propagated the concept that the electricity cost increase was entirely due to the carbon tax was directly or by omission allowed to run free.

A) you have not provided one single article where this was directly stated,
B) To support the claim of omission, you need to show that in nearly all discussions of electricity pricing, the other other factors have been ignored. As I have already where in Newscorp publications there have been clear and accurate discussions of the causes of the cost rises, and there are plenty more. So the "by omission" claim is also false.

Your single link is to an "opinion" piece where the author comments on the anger in a phone call to a radio station and the implications to the government. That he then does not digress to rehash all the facts as to why you feel that "Rose" has no reason to feel angry is irrelevant to the point the author was making, and not an omission.

Lucy face, you lied. I have you cornered and you can't wiggle any more.

"....That he then does not digress to rehash all the facts as to why you feel that "Rose" has no reason to feel angry is irrelevant to the point the author was making, and not an omission."

Rehash all the facts! It's not an "opinion" piece, it's the "news" by roving reporter Greg Hunt, with the human interest aspect of a crying little old lady to gain the reader's sympathy in preparation for the misrepresentation to come in the article.

Nobody can tell someone how to feel, but Newscorp and Hunt were telling everybody why she felt it, it was due to that bad, bad carbon "tax".

You are as shameless as Abbott was in parliament over power bills, Shallow Minister. You're not Sophie Mirabella, are you

....and not the very healthy AAA economy.

Surely you don't fall for that rubbish Poirot, as the only reason we have a AAA is because the others are in much worse shape.

As for reinstating much needed confidence, the best way to repay debt is to boost the economy, with SPENDINGS not WASTE.

As I said before, let's wait and see, and you can be assured that I will be the first to admit it if I am wrong.

Lucyface,

It's a "news" article? really?

The author is commenting on the anger, directed at the carbon tax, of Rose who is calling in to 2GB. Her anger is palpable, and as the author comments is going to be a big problem for the government. What Rose may very well be aware of the reasons for the cost increases, and it may simply be the one line item labelled "carbon tax" adding insult to injury. This is all irrelevant, she is angry at the government, as are thousands of others, and this is a bad situation for Juliar.

Your lie of Newscorp directly attributing all the cost rise to the carbon tax only needs one example to prove which you spectacularly failed to provide.

Your lie of "omission" needs to show that of the thousands of articles in Newscorp, there is a preponderance of articles that discuss the price rise of electricity and don't discuss the breakdown of the costs. This you have again spectacularly failed to do.

The only conclusion is that you lied.

You are as shameless as Juliar Gillard.

Your challenge was met spectacularly, and again you want to move the goal-posts. Go jump.

Rupert has been at it for decades now. He is an insidious force against WASP democracies around the planet as he ruthlessly pursues his own agenda. His media dominance must be broken and your support for his incredible shenanigans in Australia in this election puts you in his corner.

You support for this "news" article as journalism and, no doubt, for Abbott's pathetic subterfuge in parliament over power bills, demonstrates the level of your judgement.

Lucy, Epic failure.

You never got anywhere near the goal posts. I asked for one article where the electricity price rise was directly attributed to the carbon tax. You have spectacularly failed to do so.

You have also failed to show that Newscorp has omitted in thousands of articles to attribute anything other than the carbon tax to the price rise. I provided 2 article that showed the break down, and you showed one opinion piece that among other things discussed the impact of the electricity price. You need a lot more than that to prove your point.

As it is clear that you are incapable of distinguishing the truth from propaganda, or even understanding what you have claimed.

I'll leave OLO readers to make their own minds up, if they have followed this thread, whether I've backed up my statement of Thursday, 12 September 2013 1:43:29 PM. with a satisfactory example.

You are clearly incapable of distinguishing truthful journalism from Newscorp fostered misrepresentation and political propaganda that supporting Abbott's attempted deceit of parliament with power bills.

Lucyface,

Coming from someone that tells lies, I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/tactics-turn-on-electricity-bills/story-fnagkbpv-1226493348601