He says it better than us.

[billyduckworth]

Interesting article. Not sure, though, about the historical/political accuracy of comparing what has happened these past weeks with Menzies and Howard.

Firstly, Menzies. Not sure that it is accurate to describe him as a small l liberal. He spoke with a posh accent and was extraordinarily conservative in his views on everything from communism to fashion. He held on to the illusion of the British Empire and the superiority of all things British far beyond its use by date, when it was obvious to all astute observers that Australia's economic and strategic future was in the Asia-Pacific region.

Secondly, Howard. Not sure that it is accurate to portray him as the one who steered the Liberal Party away from its small l liberal traditions towards some kind of right wing neo-conservatism. He had been a minister in the Fraser government and was already well known for his conservative views, particularly on industrial relations. His "right hand man" Costello was also far from a small l liberal, having launched his career with the famous "dollar sweets" case (does anyone still remember that?), which was the start of the attack on trade unions.

The article also mentions Fraser. Although now as an "elder statesman" he comes across as having small l liberal views, when he was Prime Minister, he had a reputation for being snobby, extremely conservative and penny pinching (remember the "razor gang"?).

So, rather than a small l liberal organisation that has recently been "hijacked" by conservatives, I would argue that the Australian Liberal Party has always been a misnomer. It has always been conservative, not liberal. Moreover, it has been politically SUCCESSFUL when it has been led by conservative men such as Howard, Fraser and Menzies. When softer more moderate men such as Peacock, Gorton and Turnbull have led the party, it has failed electorally.

This would appear to show that there is a significant conservative streak in the Australian public. Although we were the first nation on earth to vote in a Labour government (1910) and among the first to introduce old age pensions, votes for women, etc, this "reformist" tendency (for want of a better description) has always run alongside a very strong conservative tradition, sometimes referred to as "wowserism" by an earlier generation of historians. Conservative politicians (to use their correct label) such as Menzies and Howard have been extremely skilled at tapping in to this tradition of fear (think reds under the bed, Tampa). I suppose it can also be argued that reformist leaders such as Whitlam were highly skilled at tapping into that opposite tradition of a "fair go" for everyone, but don't forget the Australian electorate only tolerated Whitlam and his grand schemes for three years before kicking him out in the biggest landslide ever (1975).

end of rant. thanks for tuning in.

[Sismis]

What exactly is labour doing except gaining popularity by default?

Not contesting in 2 by-elections? Absolutely weak as piss.

Abbot wants a debate on climate change. Rudd squibs.

Labour better hope the Liberals can't get their shit together.

[Sismis]

How about debate the issue, the biggest issue in the world? How about taking an opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that the plan we may have to go to an election over, is in fact the best one. Unless he is not confident enough in the ETS proposition, I can see no reason why he would not debate it.

And what about relying on the greens to fight their battles for them in the By-elections? Had Labour had a crack they could have, at the very least, forced 2 Liberal strongholds to go preferences for the first time in years. This would have Demonstrated the true public opinion on this issue. Instead Abbott gains a mandate for his rejection of the ETS.

[dom_105]

Rudd's not going to put himself up there to get shot down, it's as simple as that.

[MH_Bomber]

Why give these right wing jerks any more oxygen than they have had already in overturning the two-party consensus position ? The likes of Abbott, Minchin Bolt el al are not scientists yet they are running round like blue arsed flys over a couple of emails they amount to nought in the over entirety of the issue. 99% of climatologists agree that the globe is warming and mad made carbon emissions are contributing to this warming. The green house effect has been known and acknowledged since the bloody 70's. The only "scientists" who disagree are those getting their pay cheque from those with vested interests in keeping the status quo i.e. big oil and big coal.

What does Bolt have to say about this ;

Australia records hottest six months ever

December 9, 2009 - 2:30PM

Australia has recorded its hottest six months ever, and is well on track to have the second hottest year since records began, the Bureau of Meteorology says.

The World Meteorological Organisation's annual climate statement released today at Copenhagen found temperatures in 2009 reached 0.44C above the 1961-1990 annual average.

"The decade 2000-2009 is very likely to be the warmest on record," WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud told reporters at the Copenhagen climate summit late on Tuesday, Australian time.

Australia was singled out for its wild weather in 2009.

"Australia had the third-warmest year on record with three exceptional heatwaves," Mr Jarraud said.

The WMO report said the heatwaves happened in January/February, when the hot weather contributed to the disastrous Victorian bushfires, in August and again in November.

The presence of El Nino conditions underway in the Pacific saw near-record rises in sea surface temperatures and most parts of Australia experienced an exceptionally mild winter.

Maximum temperatures were also well above the national average, with 3.2C above normal, the largest ever recorded in any month.

Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology's national climate centre, said one of the biggest impacts in the last year had been the absence of cold, with a massive decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

"The last six months have been the warmest six months on record for Australia," Dr Jones told reporters in Melbourne today.

"We expect 2009 will be either the second warmest year on record for Australia or the third warmest."

He said the results were not surprising.

"Every decade's been getting warmer for the last 70 years.

"Clearly climate change hasn't stopped, global warming hasn't stopped..."

The outlook for the summer is consistent, Dr Jones said, with warm daytime conditions in northeast Australia forecast to continue.

AAP

He and that imbecile Fielding keep trotting out this line that the world is cooling. Its like something from 1984 - 2 + 2 = 5 with these guys !!!!!

[Sismis]

The real problem is the complexity of the issues invloved in climate change. The biggest and best supercomputers in the world are attempting to model it and unfortunately on occasionj 2 + 2 is equalling 5.

The world is clearly getting warmer. The only real argument between scientists is whether it is the influence of man. Most believe it is however there are quite a few who believe (and not without basis) that the world is just going through one of it's warming fazes effectively ending an ice age.

While it is an extremely complex issue can we seriously bet our future on the fact that it might NOT be our fault?

[MH_Bomber]

The real problem is the complexity of the issues invloved in climate change. The biggest and best supercomputers in the world are attempting to model it and unfortunately on occasionj 2 + 2 is equalling 5.

I dont get this statement Sismis. The clear consensus amongst 99.9 % of climate scientists is that man made carbon emissions are significantly contributing to global warming. The skeptics are trying to muddy the waters. I look at it from this point of view why would climatologists "make this up" and scare everyone into reducing emissions ? What have they got to gain from that ? Absolutely nothing. However the so called scientists working for oil companies and the like trying to delay action and keep the status quo have got a vested interest in the world doing nothing - the almighty $$$.

[dom_105]

However the so called scientists working for oil companies and the like trying to delay action and keep the status quo have got a vested interest in the world doing nothing - the almighty $$$.

Thing is though, everybody has a horse in the race, so to speak. There are a lot of people with a lot to lose financially and politically if this whole climate change business turns out to be overstated. Lets not pretend that everybody pushing for a "solution" has the environment, and only the environment, in mind.

[Sismis]

The real problem is the complexity of the issues invloved in climate change. The biggest and best supercomputers in the world are attempting to model it and unfortunately on occasionj 2 + 2 is equalling 5.

I dont get this statement Sismis. The clear consensus amongst 99.9 % of climate scientists is that man made carbon emissions are significantly contributing to global warming. The skeptics are trying to muddy the waters. I look at it from this point of view why would climatologists "make this up" and scare everyone into reducing emissions ? What have they got to gain from that ? Absolutely nothing. However the so called scientists working for oil companies and the like trying to delay action and keep the status quo have got a vested interest in the world doing nothing - the almighty $$$.

Consensus does not = proof and ATM there is no clear cut hard evidence. You are right and so is dom that there is a massive ammount of self interest involved here.

basically as Turnbull said, this is gonig to cost and cost big. Possibly more than any other single enterprise in human history, if it is to work it going to require everyone on board and that is a big ask.

[j-mac31]

Well then there'll never be definite proof. Just the fact that temperatures are rising at the same time as man is pumping more carbon-dioxide into the air.

[Sismis]

All we need is more flops!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/austral ... T_email_nl

[BenDoolan]

With almost 12 days to go, Merry Xmas!......

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JmPSUMBrJoI&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JmPSUMBrJoI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[MH_Bomber]

And to even the ledger against Minnesotans for Global Warming (another remarkedly well organised denial group), I offer this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y

[BERT]

Good to see Kev keeping a cap on the number of people going to the wankfest. Taking his own photographer. Can this mans ego get any bigger?

[JimboC]

Yep...can't stand Mr K.Rudd - Mr Photo Opportunity / Media Glutton...

Sick of his verbal diarea..and Puffry policy...Let's have a ETS debate...and let Australia decide...

Too bad there is no reasonable alternative...,

Funny Politics is on this forum to be honest...

[MH_Bomber]

Get off the grass !

There was a debate about this issue and its called the last election. Both major parties put forward an ETS scheme as policy to reduce carbon emissions. A price of carbon is a good method of reducing carbon emissions. Whilst the governments legistlation had its flaws it was a start.

The issue would have been bipartisan had those contrarians that are prisoners of the skeptic PR machine not got their way. Please be very aware that the skeptic machine is well organised and well funded by the likes of Exxon-Mobil and they have f-wits like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones dribbling at the mouth to create doubt about the validity of the scientific consensus. The last time I looked Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones arent scientists and the crap they are spouting is just unbelievable.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/11/06/2735953.htm

The Opposition talk of sound bite politics but all I have heard this week from them is the same repeated mantras.

"Big New Tax On Everything"
"Money Go Round"

The ETS was designed to compesate householders hit with higher fuel costs. The Liberals are going round saying anything and doing anything to sound like they have some kind of alternative policy BUT there is no way you can significantly change behaviour without some pain - i.e. COST. Turnbull has said it the moderate Liberals know it.

Why are they now trotting out this new line that we shouldnt do anything unless the yanks do something. If every country in the world thinks like that then no one will do anything and we can just collectively put our heads in the sand and say its all too hard.

[dom_105]

there is no way you can significantly change behaviour without some pain - i.e. COST. Turnbull has said it the moderate Liberals know it.

Then why compensate for that cost? Doesn't that go against what this ETS is trying to achieve?

I have a significant problem with the ETS as I understand it. I assume that it would be similar to other financial derivatives, in that "carbon credits" are traded on the open market and the scarcity of these credits is what gives them their value. Now, of course, investors conduct themselves in financial markets to make a profit, and will no doubt use carbon credits to help them achieve their investment goals.

The problem I have with this is the impact that these actions would have on the price of credits. Carbon would be a cost of production, and I have no problem with this, but business will be paying a specific price based not on the carbon they produce, but also based on the suits on Wall Street or Exchange Square.

What is stopping investors speculating the f*** out of these derivatives and pushing the price up, as we have seen recently with Gold and Oil. And what are Governments going to do as a result, they'd have businesses significantly hurting because of added costs to conducting business, and investors with a significant amount of value tied up in a piece of paper (so they can't flood the market with credits to push the price down)

[BERT]

Get off the grass !

There was a debate about this issue and its called the last election. Both major parties put forward an ETS scheme as policy to reduce carbon emissions. A price of carbon is a good method of reducing carbon emissions. Whilst the governments legistlation had its flaws it was a start.

The issue would have been bipartisan had those contrarians that are prisoners of the skeptic PR machine not got their way. Please be very aware that the skeptic machine is well organised and well funded by the likes of Exxon-Mobil and they have f-wits like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones dribbling at the mouth to create doubt about the validity of the scientific consensus. The last time I looked Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones arent scientists and the crap they are spouting is just unbelievable.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/11/06/2735953.htm

The Opposition talk of sound bite politics but all I have heard this week from them is the same repeated mantras.

"Big New Tax On Everything"
"Money Go Round"

The ETS was designed to compesate householders hit with higher fuel costs. The Liberals are going round saying anything and doing anything to sound like they have some kind of alternative policy BUT there is no way you can significantly change behaviour without some pain - i.e. COST. Turnbull has said it the moderate Liberals know it.

Why are they now trotting out this new line that we shouldnt do anything unless the yanks do something. If every country in the world thinks like that then no one will do anything and we can just collectively put our heads in the sand and say its all too hard.

This. Totally right and have a look at the rodents travels ALWAYS with his fat ugly slag of a Machiavellian bitch. And a photo opportunist? You have to be kidding. The poor old GG got the arse 1996-2007.

JimboC you need to stop reading Gruppenfuerher Von Bolt.

Come on Filth. Pope Rudd has to go OS at least once a month just to make sure they serve him the right meals. He is on a crusade to save the world. Pity we want him to run our country and maybe spend a bit of time in it.

[JimboC]

JimboC you need to stop reading Gruppenfuerher Von Bolt.

HA HA...Hey Filth, its either him or the articles in the Australian...ha ha

[dom_105]

Well, Rudd's been to Afghanistan a handful of times, and you yourself Filthy were pretty critical when Howard went out to the Middle East to visit the troops.