Comments on: Fair crack of the sauce bottle

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:22:54 +0000

I can see that this is a very cosy little right-thinking club but isn’t anyone going to respond to my earlier post – a touché at least would be nice
.
*sigh* okay Island view, at least as trolls go, you don’t spam the fuck out of every thread. You said:
.
So Abbott & his anti-market response to climate change is a social democrat? and what about that classic centralist John Howard ??
.
Abbott’s response to climate change is small and attempts to incentivise industry to clean up the “low hanging fruit”. Labor might want to call it anti-market but that’s just an attempt at wedge politics, and in this case it doesn’t work, because it’s incorrect.
.
Your point about John Howard escapes me. I think your larger point is to tease us because Abbott and Howard have both advocated climate change mitigation, which must go against the grain for anti-interventionist climate sceptics. Am I close?

By: Pedro

Pedro — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:46:36 +0000

I thought Casssidy was good and Rudd his usual annoying self, namely, a cliche machine and an instinctive liar. Nicely nailed on the double disolution dodge.

I think the blame acceptance tactic does take the heat out of questions.

School building waste could be a big issue if widespread.

By: TerjeP (say Tay-a)

TerjeP (say Tay-a) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:53:05 +0000

Rudd has been enormously popular as a PM. The danger for him going into the next election has been that he ends up looking like a sure thing and his MPs and his supporters get complacent. Given the fact that there is bad news brewing I figure that his tactic is to cop it sweet now and take a hit in the polls now rather than latter so he can play the under dog in the run up to the election. At this stage I’m tipping that it will work and Rudd will win. However he can’t afford much more in the way of negative revelations closer to the election. So if there is any more dirty laundry he should be getting it out in the open now. The waste in the School building program is a ticking bomb politically and if it stays on a slow burn and explodes closer to the election he is in trouble. It all depends on how bad the waste has been and when the story gets legs.

By: JC

JC — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:31:03 +0000

Explain, Andrew? What risk do we impose on ourselves with delays?

By: Andrew Reynolds

Andrew Reynolds — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:26:33 +0000

JC,
As Garrett found with ceiling insulation, though, once a tidal wave of money hits the industry either prices go up or quality goes down. By delaying we could be taking a risk as well.

By: Abu Chowdah

Abu Chowdah — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:58:31 +0000

Island, no one felt motivated or compelled to respond to your observation because it was so lame. Thanks to Michael for donating 10 seconds he’ll never get back in addressing your contribution.

By: JC

JC — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:12:35 +0000

Yea, I’d say 2025- 2030. It’s not worth rushing either. As economies of scale come in these plants will collapse in price.

An American firm’s quote came in 30% higher than the Korean’s for two plants in the middle east with the Korean’s using Westinghouse technology.

Price will eventually fall precipitously, sop the longer we wait the better it would be.

By: Fleeced

Fleeced — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:51:53 +0000

What’s the bet we’ll have nukes within the decade?

Doubtful… I wish it were true, but it takes a while to build these things, and will need the states on board. By 2030, perhaps – but 2020? Too soon.

By: Michael Sutcliffe

Michael Sutcliffe — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:36:03 +0000

JC, that works for me. Let’s hope it happens.

What’s the bet we’ll have nukes within the decade?

By: JC

JC — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:21:43 +0000

Michael:

I think Abbott’s hidden agenda is to soften the electorate towards nuke anyway. I don’t think he’ll do that in the first term if he wins. I think he’ll “GST it” and talk about it with the public, making it policy into a second term if he wins the next election as looks more and more likely.

The other proposal is just crap, to show he has a policy. The real meat will be nuke which of course Labor can’t run with as they’re appealing the the anti-science, bed-wetter Luddite voting block.