This is a practical analogy of the role of government. Why do we have a government at all? For the people? You decide...
John Howard changed his mind, but had the guts to put it to an election for the vote. He was elected on the platform of a GST. It was THE election issue. Gillard promised, gave her word, NO TAX ON CARBON. Then after an election goes back on her word. Are you so disingenuous that you would compare the two?????
The point is that Gillard outright lied. Howard has nothing to do with Gillards dishonesty. You might as well say that Obama lied. What's YOUR point?
I am sure there are people out there just waiting for one of them , just one of them ... to say the words ... "let them eat cake" .... and then its on for young and old ...
ok so basically this was a bait and switch right? Bait the people with a doomed "ETS" plan, get them all arguing about the merits of an "ETS" vs "Carbon Tax" vs "how best to tackle climate change" (with all the attached pre-suppositions re climate change hoax). Publicly announce that the ETS plan is now 'shelved.' Said peoples let out a sigh of relief, a victory for them! Meanwhile, back on the farm, a Prime Minister is ousted. A few months later announce a 'Carbon Tax.' Said peoples hurrah at the introduction of this new tax - they proclaim "Well I would prefer a TAX over an ETS!"* I ask the question: If proposed "Carbon Tax" had been cold announce out of the blue 2 years ago would it have been hurrahed as such? *Prefer a tax over an ETS? Is like saying I would prefer to be anal raped by a chair leg rather than a crow bar.
Maybe things would be different if the USA had not recruited members of the Labour party as spies? This sounds like a manipulation from the USA to me, along with a panic because during the boom times both parties left the power infrastructure to rot.
Left vs. right has little to do with it. This issue is established industry vs. innovation. If you want to claim advocating for cleaner energy is an exclusively left-wing position, that would mean that the right-wing is backing the old polluting energy sources and is behind the global-warming-isn't-really-happening-and-if-it-is-it-certainly-isn't-us-causing-it studies that are funded by the oil companies. Both of these may be true to a certain extent but in the long term, whoever switches to renewables first is going to be at an advantage. China, for example, have their own thorium supply. As soon as they figure out how to mass produce thorium reactors they're not going to need all the coal we're selling them at the moment. Europe, for example, isn't going to be hit as badly by the current spike in oil prices because they mandated fuel efficiency standards a while ago so they don't need to buy as much of it. Watch what happens in countries still running their vehicles on inefficient ICEs when oil hits $200/barrel and tell me there is no benefit in switching to alternative energy sources.
The last Prime Minister to break a pre-election promise and introduce a tax suffered no come-back. The only difference is that he introduced it on the upswing of the largest credit bubble in living memory.
Need to read your history books. the 1998 election was fought on the GST. Fought and won and implemented. Gillard promised, gave her word, NO TAX ON CARBON. Then after an election goes back on her word.
Chiqau Dr Hewson lost the biggest give me election ever when he was honest and said he'd introduce a GST. Howard's mandate was to replace Keating. Then he rode the biggest credit bubble ever where so much money rolled in that they couldn't spend it fast enough. Even Anna Bligh could appear a competent economic manager under those conditions.
Howards mandate after the 1998 election was to introduce a GST Gillard promised, gave her word, NO TAX ON CARBON. Then after an election goes back on her word. What is her mandate??
Some mandate - didn't even get half the votes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1998
Sorry, but how has his poor mandate got anything to do with Gillard's no mandate at all. She is a LIAR.
My argument was that John Howard lied and introduced a new tax yet no-one cared so why would it be different for Gillard? As long as the booze is flowing the drunks will be happy.
Maybe Hawke was the last decent PM but Keating sold a piggery to Muslims (WTF?), Howard sold out to J6P greed and stole my guns, Rudd was a muppet of the highest order and Gillard, well we can see why she doesn't like wikileaks
