My dog ate my rally

You might have noticed some coverage of the fairly pathetic turnout for the “we’re Liberals we’ll never accept the ALP in government” protest in Canberra this morning. (Slightly less pathetic if you take the ABC route and just repeat the organisers’ claims as fact, but even on their optimistic figures only a fraction of what GetUp was able to rouse in opposition a few weekends back with a few days’ notice and without the relentless promotion of commercial media hacks.)

And that means you won’t have been able to avoid the myriad pissweak excuses cheerleaders for the Liberal Party have been spinning to try to continue to pretend they represent a “silent majority” engaged in a “people’s revolt”.


There was some strong competition amongst Liberal frontbenchers to be photographed in front of the sign calling the Prime Minister a “bitch”.

(My favourite so far is the “but we’re not all unemployed bums like you leftists” line, which begs the obvious question – then why do you organise your protests for the middle of the week? It might surprise those of you who mistake cliched stereotypes for reality, but we do have jobs – which is why lefty rallies are usually sensibly held on weekends.)

Please share in the comments the more amusing excuses you’ve heard.

UPDATE: Ooh! Ooh. Caption-time – what’s Bronywn Bishop thinking in that photograph?

About these ads

63 responses to “My dog ate my rally

  1. Yes, that sign calling Julia Gillard Bob Brown’s bitch is my personal “favourite”.

    Are the female Liberal Party contingent so used to sexism (having to work with that misogynist Abbott) that they don’t even notice signs that degrade women?

  2. That microphone under Abbots nose looks like a “Hitler Tash.”

    Call me crazy but does Bronny Bishop looks like Eva Braun ?

    Abbot says “Und ze carbon tax will ruin ze whole country.”

    Well Pyne was offended by the word denial in question time today. Connotations of the Holocaust, I think he meant.

    The Liberal party is becoming a laughing stock. Bloody good news.

    And YES for once, I’m bloody offended.

  3. Splatterbottom

    Nah. They just thought it was an apt description of the recent pupeteering that passes for government these days.

    Anyway it was good to see a few thousand people get down to Canberra to let people know that they’d prefer not to have a cynical liar as PM. Of course the Greens are happy enough with that so long as they have their way with her.

  4. That is a truly terrible image for Tony Abbott. I’m surprised his media minders allowed him within a hundred meters of it. As a thought experiment, can you imagine John Howard ever appearing in such a picture? I sure can’t. Abbott has less than zero credibility. If I was a Liberal back-bencher looking at that, I’d be embarrassed. Turnbull must be salivating.

  5. “Of course the Greens are happy enough with that so long as they have their way with her.”

    Um, they’re not suggesting that people vote Labor.

  6. Mr Rabid has jumped the shark.

  7. “I’d be embarrassed. Turnbull must be salivating.”

    Indeed. It is over for Abbott. Anyone thinking he will take the coalition to the next election is nuts. He will be removed, as sure as! What did Andrew Peacock say? As sure as night follows day, yep that’s what he said. I will further predict they will dump Morrison to the back bench. These bastards are beyond party politics, they’re nasty individuals who are an insult to true conservatives every where.

    As for the crowd. Yea most of them were about as bright as a five watt globe. The ‘ Tea Party’ tools look quite sane in comparison. Oh but wait we did have an ageing rock star, oh shit sorry just a rock or a crock maybe, I’m not quite sure, leading the throng into raptures of nothingness.

    I mean, after todays question time they needed something.

  8. No. Wait. My new favourite sign is “My Mom is Cold”. Pure gold.

  9. Captions:

    Bronwyn: My god!, where did they drag this lot of inbreds from? They can’t even spell!
    Sophie: Who cares, as long as they can put a ‘1’ in the right box.

    or

    B: Who left the gate at the old people’s home open?

    or

    B: Where’s damn security? If one oft hese old wrinklies touch me I’ll scream.

    or

    B: So this is what Coalition supporters look like up-close in the daylight. Gawd, we’re screwed.

    Excuses:
    Only the hypocrites of the left would use all that fuel driving to Canberra.

  10. Chris Uhlman seemed to me to give a very favourable report for the protesters. Lateline was better but Greg Hunt was allowed to make his repeated claim about Abbott being compared with a war criminal… Abbott has been described as Goebelian (sp?) He is, Hunt should look it up: “Stop the boats”, “Great big tax”…

    “Anyway it was good to see a few thousand people get down to Canberra ”

    Great to see that the loud mouth, ignorant bigots are loud but small in number. The pathetic turn out makes me happy.

  11. “I’m glad Mirabella’s here; she makes me look sane”.

  12. Are they mad, can’t they read, this is not good.

  13. I just flicked through the Herald Sun. No mention of the revolting people? Though the main letter is one pointing out Trollumnist’s bullsh1t regarding the Iraq War..

    I wonder if the Sun are starting to think that with trollumnist’s ever increasing hysteria he’s beocommgn a liability?

  14. Am I the first person to ask why the term “Jew-Liar” is not being universally condemned as anti-Semitic hate speech?

    Just asking.

    Brendan O’Reilly

  15. I’m certainly not laughing at the abuse I heard and saw hurled yesterday. There’s nothing funny about any of it.

    That crowd was all but baying for blood – and the Coalition happily whipped them further into a frenzy with lies.

  16. “That crowd was all but baying for blood – and the Coalition happily whipped them further into a frenzy with lies.”

    Don’t forget Angry Anderson getting all, er … angry. WTF is Angry Anderson doing there?

  17. Splatterbottom

    Lynot: “Yea most of them were about as bright as a five watt globe. “

    You’ll be lucky to get 5 watt globes under our new carbon overlords. Not that that will make any difference to the mushroom Greens who spend their shit-eating lives in the dark anyway.

    The funny thing is that if normal people stage a demo lefties shit themselves. They start wringing their hands, wetting their rancid panties and bleating about how mean and nasty the protesters are.

    I suppose the left thinks they have a mortgage on protests. They really can’t get their heads around the fact that you don’t need a well-funded tightly-held corporation like Getupthemselves! to organise a demo. Their only response is to whine about incivility when a group of good-natured intelligent people stage a peaceful protest. If I’d heard them criticising violent rallies where police were injured and frothing loons arrested then I might give them a second thought. But they are barely worth a chuckle at their immature political gamesmanship.

  18. “good-natured intelligent people”

    Who refer to the Prime Minister as a “bitch”…

    Interesting gravatar SB. Perhaps try smiling though next time… :)

  19. If you took the trouble to look at the Get Up site, you would see that all they do is invite people to protest. They also were necessary arrange transport, as was done yesterday to get the people to the rally. Get Up does not have a couple of radio staions pushing the rally for a couple of weeks.

  20. “mushroom Greens who spend their shit-eating lives in the dark anyway.”

    Implying that the Greens are luddites is either dishonest or ignorant (I’m picking dishonest SB, which is worse IMO). Those of us who understand the requirement to develop renewable, zero emission solutions to replace the current method of providing baseload energy (that would be Greens) are hardly technophobes. I’m a technophile myself.

    Educate yourself, Google ‘Ausra” (they used to be Australian before King Coa… John Howard pretty much kicked them out of Australia, now California will reap the benefitd, we’ll be paying customers. Good foresight by the right wing, coal burning Luddites…./SARC

  21. Splatterbottom

    Most of the people there were good-natured intelligent people. But now the political games have started. The leftist meme has been generated, the talking points distributed and, as we can see on this thread, the trolls are piling on.

  22. “you don’t need a well-funded tightly-held corporation like Getupthemselves!”

    erm, it looks like the ‘right’ could do with some help because the protest organised by a shock jock was a complete flop. They even had to scrape together some utter loons (one Nation, Anti Semetic groups and the utter clown who claimed that more carbon dioxide was good for all living things…) just to get about 2 000 protesters??? Sad (for the wingnuts)!

  23. “The funny thing is that if normal people stage a demo lefties shit themselves. They start wringing their hands, wetting their rancid panties and bleating about how mean and nasty the protesters are. ”

    Normal! Your taking the piss as usual. The rally had all the qualities of a regular “Krystal Nacht 2 ” Less the brown shirts.

    This rally was like the second coming for me, if any confirmation was actually needed, these numb nuts are away with the fairy’s. The base of the Liberal party in all its glory. SB but you keep defending them as is your want. It only confirms where your at on the political spectrum. Oh but wait your a centralist arnt you?

  24. ‘Splatterbottom’ = troooooollllll.

    By which I mean I’m giving them the benefit of actually fabricating the rubbish they wrote, rather than assuming they’re too stupid not to see through lies and propaganda spouted by the Coalition and Alan Jones.

  25. Splatterbottom

    The PM has cynically broken her word. It is not surprising that decent citizens are outraged and protest. Nor is it surprising that the footsoldiers of the left are heaping scorn on them.

    Rationality is as alien to the left as the idea that politicians should keep their promises. So here we have a carbon (dioxide) tax, a policy so ridiculous that it can’t possibly achieve its alleged aim, implemented by a PM who would not have been elected if she had told the truth about it.

    For the left this is just well-executed praxis. Power is everything and truth is irrelevant.

  26. “It is not surprising that decent citizens are outraged and protest.

    It’s not surprising, though the FACT of the matter is though hardly anybody is upset enough to protest about it (not like the Iraq War), even though Abbott and the Shock Jocks have been urging people to revolt.

    SB, can you respond to my claim that you’re either being dishonest or just plain ignorant when you tried to paint all Greens as luddites?

    “Rationality is as alien to the left”
    Even though it’s you, the self proclaimed centrist who is spouting utter nonsense in this thread?

  27. “Most of the people there were good-natured intelligent people.”

    Did you attend or are you just taking Abbott’s word for it? If it’s the latter did he put it in writing? If it’s the former then maybe it’s a case of birds of a feather? I bet the Anti-Semitic group that attended think they’re good-natured, intelligent people.

    I was just hearing things when the good-natured, intelligent crowd were chanting “Ditch the bitch”?

  28. narcoticmusing

    what’s Bronywn Bishop thinking in that photograph?

    “There is no spoon.”

  29. Splatterbottom

    RobJ “luddites” is not exactly what I had in mind. Ignorant, irrational, misanthropic economic vandals is more to the point. I don’t mind them pursuing new tech. I do object to them doing so by hijacking the economy.

    If Australia wants to model anyone it should be China. They are building lots of coal-fired power stations to preserve their economic advantage as well as windmills to sell to self-righteous foreign governments who by installing them make their own economies uncompetitive. This is not sharp business practice on their part, just a rational way to exploit morons.

  30. “Ignorant, irrational, misanthropic economic vandals is more to the point.

    Sure becuase anyoine who understands the concept of sustainability is an “Ignorant, irrational, misanthropic economic vandals “. Those who think that waste is good however……

    ” I do object to them doing so by hijacking the economy. ”

    As would I, thing is I don’t hang off Abbott’s bullsh1t rhetoric. ;)

  31. I’ve read the claim that the League of Rights were there at the conservative love-in, with ‘Jew Liar’ placards (haven’t seen any photos of it though).

    Christopher Pyne must be outraged. Can’t wait to hear him denounce this.

  32. narcoticmusing

    Rationality is as alien to the left as the idea that politicians should keep their promises.

    You may want to refer to the next thread… are you seriously suggesting that a change of position (which is arguably not a change but even if it were) in the negotiation of a new government due to a hung parliament (where yes, in case you missed out on what that means, the party that ‘won’ must make concessions, which can mean some changes to what was originally up for grabs) is the same as a lie? As opposed to Abbott’s outright in your face lies?

    In a hung parliament, the Government is obliged to negotiate the position on certain matters. It is why when you get a hung parliament you don’t really get what either major party promised – which is really the intent, because a hung parliament suggests a rejection of both major parties. So, while I personally agree that a carbon price and a tax are pretty close to being the same and thus she has gone back on her committment; this is not contrary to the committments made in the affirmative by the other parties she now must negotiate the new position with. It would be equally deceptive for Brown/Bandt to not push for a carbon price/tax; that they won in that negotiation does not make Julia subordinate to them, simply that it is at worst concession, at best, consistent with the overarchign policy of the ALP and thus reasonble to reverse one element to fulfil the overall position.

    Do you understand negotiations at all?

  33. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “It is why when you get a hung parliament you don’t really get what either major party promised – which is really the intent, because a hung parliament suggests a rejection of both major parties. “

    Where is the logic in that? If you promise that a government you lead will not do something then at least you should vote against it or stand down. It would be understandable that she might not have the votes to get a promised measure through, but it is inexcusable when she is actually voting for and sponsoring a thing she promised not to do.

    “So, while I personally agree that a carbon price and a tax are pretty close to being the same”

    This is just fucking trolling. Tell me how Gillard’s proposal is not a carbon tax? Even she has given up with this sort of bullshit, but sadly you don’t seem to be able to untangle your shredded tongue from her stinking dangleberries.

  34. narcoticmusing

    So you suggest someone quit the second they don’t win an argument? Gee, you’d be a great manager.

    SB, how is me agreeing that a carbon tax and price are close enough to the same thing that I don’t think it is worth argueing they are different trolling? I am acknowledging that some believe they are different but essentially agree with your position on that – how is that trolling? Unless I am inciting the many on this blog that think they are differnt, but you don’t care about that. You just go into auto-attack anyone who almost sounds like they don’t agree with me mode.

    sadly you don’t seem to be able to untangle your shredded tongue from her stinking dangleberries.

    And you can’t manage to have a debate without insulting people. I am not even close to a supporter of Gillard but you are so blinded by your pro-right agenda that you see anyone that doesn’t completely agree with you as an enemy you must attack at tear down – seems like you are in line with the current liberal philosphy. I suppose you have no issue with calling our PM a bitch either, you probably don’t even realise WHY it is an issue.

  35. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “I am acknowledging that some believe they are different”.

    Why acknowledge idiots? Do you acknowledge creationists?

    “I suppose you have no issue with calling our PM a bitch either, you probably don’t even realise WHY it is an issue.”

    What I do realise is the nauseating hypocrisy of people like Bob Brown who have been present at and endorsed violent and far more distasteful rallies than this. He has lost all credibility.

  36. narcoticmusing

    That someone disagrees with me doesn’t make them an idiot, idiocy is willing blindness ie ignoring other viewpoints because it doesn’t suit you.

    There is a merited argument that the carbon price will act more like a levy or a fine than a tax, meaning it can be avoided and/or mitigated in different ways that simple taxation. Many would argue that some fines are just tax, and some levy’s are just really tax too (say the levy/duty on alcohol). However it can be avoided/mitigated by not drinking booze. I don’t know the detail of the ETS so I can’t really say if it is the same or not. Ergo, as I am not an idiot, I will not discount others perspectives before having the information myself. If you wish to partake in willing blindness purely because you have what many would consider an extreme view on the ETS (ie not even willing to consider it without even seeing the detail) then I’m not sure how you get off calling others idiots.

  37. Splats, as indicated by your gravatar, you’re full of shit.

  38. I believed that Mr. Abbott was past anger today, he appeared to be consumed by hate. At stages he appears to forget where he was and that cameras were recording his reactions.

    The last woman who got under his skin so bad, he pursued to prison. (maybe Mr. Oldfield was his real target).

    The man has as history of being a good hater, but the question is does he only take on women.

    I re-watched the encounter in parliament and come to the conclusion that Mr. Abbott lost more skin than the PM.

    It was not a good show jumping up to complain when he and Mr. Hockey were heard with no interruption, except the Speaker pulling Mr. Hockey up for going too far. It was not a sight for him to be proud of, standing across the table, ranting while the PM was making her response. It was the Opposition Leader that set the tone of the debate.

    It was not a good show for the Opposition leader complaining the PM insulted him and demanding that she withdraw. The Speaker treated the request with the disdain it deserved.

    Mr. Abbott does not appear to comprehend the meaning of what he says. He does not appear to see to many, he is just being nasty by attacking the person. Mr. Abbott seems to be of the belief that if he says something, that makes it fact. He does not appreciate all he is putting forwarded is his opinion. Even to do this he cherry picks and takes words out of context. He is great for putting his own meaning on what is uttered or done. He does not appear to understand what is sexist and where women are concerned, they will not tolerate it.

    Mr. Abbott would be advise to work on that sulky smirk he gets when he believes he has done something clever. Clever but generally nasty.

    Before anyone pulls me up, this is only my opinion.

    Once again, Mr Abbott has said he is sorry some of the placards were a little overboard but as with Mr. Scott Morrison and Mr. Cory Bernardi, it was a false apology as he goes on to say, he knows why they do it. According to his reasoning. All bad behaviour is the fault of the PM. What he is really saying is that anything goes, as long as it gets him closer to his obsession of taking up his rightful role as PM.

    The PM is capable of looking after herself and is capable of giving back what she receives. This is why I believe she replaced Mr. Rudd. I believe we seen our PM as close to anger that she will ever allow herself to be. The PM was a long way from being out of control.
    Next time, and there will be a repeat of what occurred today, that the Government calls the Opposition’s bluff and allow the censure motion to succeed. I would imagine that the Opposition would soon run out stream, allowing the Government to reply to the accusations in a methodical manner. This would be better than allowing the Opposition to proceed with matter of public importance which is just another platform to trash the Government.
    …………..
    Mr. Abbott just does not get it. It is not just a few nasty slogans. Few including the PM would not worry if that was not all they were. There is plenty of evidence that the PM has a great sense of humour and can laugh at a joke made against herself. What the complaints are about is the sexist nature of many of the placards. Sensible woman have zero tolerance for sexist remarks, they are not jokes or nasty slogans.
    “Mr Abbott has told the ABC’s 7.30 program Ms Gillard did not raise the issue of an apology with him.
    “There’s no doubt that the Prime Minister’s ministers are trying to make a big song and dance about a few nasty slogans,” Mr Abbott said.
    “I really think people should stop being too precious about this.
    “And the Prime Minister, I think, is a tough enough politician who dishes it out to understand that sometimes you’ve got to take it back.”
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/abbott-says-he-did-not-apologise-to-pm/story-e6frfku0-1226027664751?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newscomaunationalbreakingnewsndm+%28NEWS.com.au+%7C+National+Breaking+News%29

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/abbott-says-he-did-not-apologise-to-pm/story-e6frfku0-1226027664751#ixzz1HWEFtZWB”

  39. PM Gillard has not sold out her core belief. What she has done is changed way she will get to a market based price on carbon, which was clearly announced during the campaign.

    This action was bought about by the fact that the voters delivered a minority government, This by the way is legal under the Constitution and Australia joins many countries in the world with similar minority parliaments as well as some Australian State governments.

    I could understand the outcry if the PM had said there would be no price on carbon and that they would not be addressing the climate change problem. This is not the case.

    As for the alleged lie, I believe it could have cost her votes.

    I believe many got the message that PM Gillard was backing off climate change, especially when she come up with the citizens group which thankfully was dropped quickly.

  40. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “ That someone disagrees with me doesn’t make them an idiot,

    Agreed. In fact it makes them quite the opposite

    There is a merited argument that the carbon price will act more like a levy or a fine than a tax, meaning it can be avoided and/or mitigated in different ways that simple taxation. Many would argue that some fines are just tax, and some levy’s are just really tax too (say the levy/duty on alcohol). However it can be avoided/mitigated by not drinking booze.

    There is no such argument, at least no rational argument to that effect. You are right that a carbon price is not a tax. The tax comes when the government imposes an obligation of people to pay it money. That is the part of the proposal that you are ignoring.

    The ETS is a different matter entirely. My proposition is that Gillard’s carbon (dioxide) tax is a tax, whatever it is called. The nature of the ETS is irrelevant to this point. You are only using that to confuse matters.

    Zoot I’m surprised you needed an avatar to work that out!

  41. Agreed. In fact it makes them quite the opposite

    LOL – You just shot yourself in the foot!

    idiocy is willing blindness ie ignoring other viewpoints because it doesn’t suit you.

  42. Splatterbottom

    Rob J, I’m not ignoring the other viewpoint but rather explaining why it is irretrievably wrong. The argument that Gillard’s proposed carbon (dioxide) tax is not a tax has absolutely no merit.

  43. Bob Brown [has] been present at and endorsed violent and far more distasteful rallies than this.

    You’ll be giving us examples of some of these, no doubt?

    My understanding is that BB has been on the quite violent “receiving end” of … shall we say, dissenting “thinkers” … on more than one occasion. He was almost shot at one point (which he describes in one of his books).

  44. “I’m not ignoring the other viewpoint

    LOL – You don’t get it, you’re reinforcing his point. If narcoticmusing claimed that 4 + 4 = 8 and someone disputed that, according to you they’d be intelligent because they don’t agree with narcoticmusing. You can wriggle and back pedal all you like, we can read what you wrote.

  45. “You’ll be giving us examples of some of these, no doubt?”

    Don’t be silly, and as we all know, it was the Police who caused the violence at S11. Bob Brown is a man of conviction, he’s got more integrity than most of the front benches of the opposition and government put together. Is he always right? No! But who is?

  46. Splatterbottom

    RM, you will not doubt remember the very peaceful S11 rally which Brown found very much to his liking. As Rob J says the protesters were merely singing lullabies when assaulted by evil police.

    Brown used to be a man of principle, but as the Greens grow more powerful be behaves more like a cynical politician.

    RobJ, you are missing the point again. You have made an unwarranted assumption. Narcotic would in fact claim that 4 + 4 = 44 is a “merited argument” and a perspective that “should not be discounted”.

  47. 4 = 4 will always equal 8.

    4 and 4 is a different thing altogether!

    And who are you to say what narcoticmusing would claim with regard to 4 + 4? Projecting again?

  48. Splatterbottom

    RobJ Narcotic claimed that their was a “merited argument” that Gillard’s carbon (dioxide) tax is not a tax. In fact that argument is clearly deluded and merits only scorn.

  49. “… found very much to his liking”

    In SBWorld, that could mean anything from expressing sympathy for the protestors via the media, right up to lobbing Molotov cocktails at the WEF participants.

  50. narcoticmusing

    That is the part of the proposal that you are ignoring. FFS SB, what proposal? There isn’t one released yet. You are ready to hang yourself on something you have no freaking idea what it’ll look like. We know it won’t be the same as the previous one because the concessions made to Lib Co (that destroyed it) won’t be there. So yes, I prefer to have FACTS (as inconvenient as they are for you) before I make up my mind. And if you knew a damn thing about making decisions, you need to know both sides and the implications. It is called good governance. It is a requirement of responsible adults, particularly those in power. Surely you’d agree with that given you claim the ‘other side’ of the carbon debate is being ignored?

    And fines are money that you are obliged to pay to govt, so the analogy still works.

    The argument that Gillard’s proposed carbon (dioxide) tax is not a tax has absolutely no merit. Based on? What, your expert opinion? Why does it have no merit? Because it disagrees with you? How does that make it not have merit? I’ve given reasons why it could be considered not a tax, you have not. Repeating yourself and insulting other people doesn’t make you right, it makes you ignorant. You’ve decided your view, fine – you who doesn’t know the detail of the ETS but have decided against it because Lib Co have and you must obey them? All you have is your opinion. Which I, and everyone here, are free to disagree with.

    There ARE arguments for and against it being a tax – the main argument that says it is a tax is the potential practical outcome. But this is the same as saying a parking fine or a levy on cigarettes is a tax. Now, if the carbon price acted more like a fine, I’d say it is less like a tax and more just a price of parking in the wrong spot, of breaching the regulated timing (or in the carbon case, the regulated level of carbon production allowed). If it acted more like a levy (as per cigarettes, import duties etc) I’d say it is more like a tax. But we don’t have the detail so I’ll wait for these inconvenient little things called facts.

    Narcotic would in fact claim that 4 + 4 = 44

    First, as RobJ pointed out, 4 and 4 is different to 4 + 4.

    Second, I’d wait for the facts – so if it turned out one of those 4s was actually a 40, then I would go, oh, I see, 4 + 40 = 44; while you’d still be there prior to the facts screaming 4+40=8 because 4+4=8 and you refuse to acknowledge the inconvenience of the 4 being 40 because it didn’t agree with your original proposition. Apologies is that explanation got confusing.

    For someone who argues both sides of the climate ‘science’ should be considered before we spend money on it, you have a odd way of describing what ‘both sides’ of an argument looks like. To you, they seem to be:
    proposition A – whatever SB thinks
    proposition B – whatever SB thinks or else it has no merit

  51. baldrickjones

    Well, if it’s so important and wasn’t a major issue at the last election – why not call another election and see what the support is? Lefties? Like democracy don’t you?

  52. Anyway it was good to see a few thousand people get down to Canberra to let people know that they’d prefer not to have a cynical liar as PM.

    They’re voting for Abbott, though, it seems. Kind of defeats their purpose entirely, doesn’t it?

  53. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “ FFS SB, what proposal? There isn’t one released yet. You are ready to hang yourself on something you have no freaking idea what it’ll look like.

    Silly me. Even though we were talking about whether a particular proposal is a tax, you now come up the rather novel argument that there is no such proposal. Interestingly the PM thinks there is a proposal. Here is a link to the non-existent proposal. On the linked page there is a link to something called “Multi-Party Climate Change Committee – Carbon Price Mechanism”. Hmmm – I wonder what that could be?

    In fact we do know what it will look like. The government will set a price, which is the price per tonne of CO2, emitted and require payment to the government from specified emitters of an amount calculated on the basis of the price and the amount of CO2 emitted.

    This is a compulsory impost by government on specified persons, and as such it is a tax.

    But this is the same as saying a parking fine or a levy on cigarettes is a tax.

    A fine is a penalty for the commission of an offense. A levy on cigarettes is a tax. To try to say the proposed carbon (dioxide) tax is not a tax based on the above analogies is as dumb as dogshit and does deserve contempt. Those arguments are completely illogical, as was the rest of your comment.

  54. narcoticmusing

    Baldrickjones – you clearly haven’t read any of the posts on the many threads on this. To just claim that the left doesn’t like democracy is the antithesis of this entire forum, which allows you, someone who only trolls and doesn’t bother reading the debate, to post. To summarise: There is debate amongst people here as to if it was a promise broken or not (ie we disagree regardless of which ‘side’ of politics) – many ‘lefties’ think it was not a broken promise because technically a price is not a tax, it is a technical distinction. Others think it was a broken promise because they see the practical outcome, like with levies. Further to this, most here understand that a hung parliament, which was not known at the time of the ‘promise’ is a different playing field than a majority. The intention of a hung parliament is that there is some negotiation and movement. If YOU understood democracy and liked democracy, you’d get that – but you don’t. You live to bag ALP no matter what LibCo do. I don’t get it. Can’t you see they are both as bad as each other? I digress. You don’t understand that because the ALP ultimately won, but if Lib Co won, and were currently fudging promises (which they are doing daily despite not winning) you’d defend them (rightly) on the same grounds. I don’t tend to vote for either so I care not if it is ALP or LibCo who are being ridiculous, I see both for what they are. Finally, the position is not inconsistent with the policy platform of the ALP, thus it is a lesser evil – only given the hung parliament situation – than if they were to abandon doing anything on climate change. So, hopefully you understand some of the reasoning. Some here aren’t being so reasonable and are instead trolling or simply being abusive – that is a nice segway…

    Ahh SB, as always, you answer none of the criticism against you and instead insult people rather than consider responding reasonably.

    Just because you say something is wrong doesn’t make it so. You said the argument was illogical – why? You saying it doesn’t make it so. Your rationale for disagreeing with my analogies was that they were ‘dumb’ and ‘illogical’ – where is your super smart logical rebuttal? Hurling insults instead of rationale reply betrays your lack of reasoning.

    In case you were not aware, a levy is not a tax although, as I already pointed out before you said my analogy was illogical a levy is often practically felt by the users as a tax. I don’t smoke, so I don’t notice the levy on cigarettes, but I do notice the GST (which is a tax) on all items. If I am a carbon polluter and reduce my emissions or offset them, I will not notice the price on carbon, but perhaps the power plant near me does. They all may be income to Government, but they are not all taxes. Kinda like all apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. A pear is really similar to an apple, but still, not an apple.

    I suggested the carbon price may take a couple of forms. I also suggested that some ‘levies’ are not considered to be technically taxes (such as the levy/duty on cigarettes and some imports) however these, in a practical sense, turn out to behave very much like taxes. I can’t help it if you do not understand the difference and want to call any income of government a ‘tax’. One could also consider the carbon price to be similar to a tollway – user pays sort of system. Most would not consider a tollway a tax, but still, some might. Again, just because you don’t understand the difference isn’t my fault.

    From your link:
    The Government will propose that the carbon price commences on 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate agreement with a majority in both houses of Parliament and pass legislation this year.

    In other words, we do not have the detail. We have some broad strokes with some assumptions. It is all still subject to negotiation. There is no consultation draft bill. There is no final arrangement.

  55. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, there is enough in the announcement to show that the “carbon price mechanism” will operate as an amount payable to the government on the emission of carbon dioxide by specified emitters. Please explain how it is in any way logically possible for that not to be a tax?

  56. narcoticmusing

    As I’ve repeatedly said, I believe in practical terms it will behave as a tax (which is why, as I’ve also stated I think it was a broken promise). Nevertheless, it is likely not going to technically be a tax (just as a levy, a duty and a fine are all government income, but not tax).

    There is a ‘distance price mechanism’ that currently operates on toll roads such as the Monash freeway and Eastern freeway in Melbourne. The way these work is that the more check points you pass through the more you pay. The money goes to government, but to pay for the road – ie like the carbon price, it is all pre-flagged to pay for the cost of the road. Most people would not see a toll as a tax – why? Because only users pay and the more you use it or further you go, the more you pay. Indeed, many in Victoria that don’t need to use the Eastern fwy are glad it is a tollroad – why should their ‘taxes’ go to paying for that road? Ie, most see a distinction between a toll and a road. It is quite easy to superimpose a toll analogy onto the carbon pricing as per the current level of detail. It is going to be in divisible amounts (like the distance) and you can avoid it (by using a different route ie using a non-carbon emitter) and all the funds raised go to paying for the road (or in the case of the ETS a few things were listed, including climate friendly research). Unlike a tollway however, the ETS will use its funds to help subsidise users – this is like not having to pay as much on the tollway if you have a health care card. So it is in many ways, much kinder to low income earners than a tollway.

    Please don’t be confused between logic and pragmatism. You are asking for logic but that won’t fly because logic can zoom in or out – you are talking about the practical impact, not the logical one. For those commuters who have to use the tollway, yeah, they probably see the tollway as another tax they get slugged with. This does not mean it is logically a tax, just that it looks like one to some.

  57. It also acts like a fine. If you dump rubbish beside the road, you leave yourself open to a fine. If you produce carbon dioxide, you are fined by having a charge imposed on the carbon dioxide. Do not produce carbon dioxide, no charge.

  58. “on specified persons, and as such it is a tax.”

    It will be imposed on spefified compauies that produce carbon dioxide.

  59. Did many of you hear what the loser raid last night. She said that they respect the voters decision. I think that all on this site also do the same, as this is democracy.
    You make your run and accept the decision until you get another chance after this government has run it course in four years time.
    It is not democracy to push a government to the polls because you do not agree with the decisions made. That does not mean we do not have the right to give opinions on the new government or that we have to agree with what it stands for.
    It does not mean what they are doing is for the benefit of us all. It also does not give us the right to hate. In a democracy you are required to respect the government’s right to exist.
    This is my concept of democracy and I believe it is time that many on the Oppositions side took a page out of the losing side last night and follow her example.
    Most Labor voters would acknowledge that it is not good for any government to be in power as long as sixteen years.

  60. Leaving aside the rather uninteresting semantic game of wether it’s a tax or not, is the somewhat more interesting idea of why some people think that simply labelling it a tax is a complete argument.

    This is mostly just a borrowing exercise, and a pretty silly one. Conservatives here have taken on the much stronger anti-tax zeal of the US conservatives. But at least in the US it makes some sense – it’s an expression of cultural values. The issue of taxation by Britian was a real and vexatious issue for American colonists. That the conservatives still run with it, centuries later, agianst their own govenment, well ……..hey, they’re conservatives. Mindlessly following such transmitted traditions is their thing.

    Australian conservatives have no such excuse. It’s just the sad spectacle of people mimicking someone else’s unexamined cultural tradition.

  61. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “Nevertheless, it is likely not going to technically be a tax (just as a levy, a duty and a fine are all government income, but not tax)”

    What do you mean by technically? I suggest you read the cases on this area to disabuse yourself of this misconception. You will find that a tax is “a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and is not a payment for services rendered.” All manner of levies, duties and royalties have been held to be taxes, and that definition has been extended since that definition was adopted in 1938. There is no doubt that an exaction based on carbon dioxide emitted is a tax.

    CU, you will also find that a company has a legal personality and is often referred to as a person.

    ‘Gadj: “Leaving aside the rather uninteresting semantic game of wether it’s a tax or not, is the somewhat more interesting idea of why some people think that simply labelling it a tax is a complete argument.”

    It is important in that it clearly demonstrates that Gillard was lying. If you think that the PM lying is not a problem so long as she is doing something you agree with then, of course, it is unimportant.

  62. Well said nawagadj.

    Ive noticed my conservative friends getting more and more upset about having to pay tax over the last 6 months. Funny thing is they are acting/complaining as if they are ALREADY paying more taxes.

    Never complained about paying GST, or any of the temporary levies /taxes the Howard government brought in, never complained about the libs being the highest taxing, highest spending government when in power, but they are getting increasingly shrill about having to pay tax to the point we decided to stop talking about it to avoid arguments, as i see tax as being the price we pay for living in a civil society with roads, sewage, national defence, police, firemen etc etc…

    These are not people who are interested in politics. Its just that the media (Dolt and Jones etc) is drip feeding them extremist “tax is theft” nonsense 24/7. I really wish Aussie conservatives would stop aping the yanks, and just get on with it. Its actually kinda embarrassing.

    I suspect when the Libs win the next federal election, the cries of “tax is theft” will evaporate, only to rear their ugly head when we next have a Labor government.

  63. Splatterbottom

    Duncan: “I see tax as being the price we pay for living in a civil society with roads, sewage, national defence, police, firemen etc”

    This is a point too easily forgotten. Tax is necessary for a civilised society to exist. As in all things this is a question of balance. Governments have to be vigilant to prevent waste and must realise that before they can tax, the economy must generate the necessary wealth to support the tax. Excess taxation can also bring a society to its knees.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s