Class Warfare

Julia Gillard on radio yesterday

I’m a Labor Prime Minister. I’m from a Labor government. We do things in a Labor way, which means fairly, and when we do things fairly that means we assist people with the most needs, and high-income earners like you and me do get asked to look after ourselves – and we can.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Class Warfare

  1. Peter Patton

    Sinc, a bit more context would help. What was she referring to?

  2. Sinclair Davidson

    the impact of the carbon tax.

  3. Except that this carbon tax will not fall on high income earners harder at all.

  4. .

    Agreed Yobbo.

    It is highly inequitable.

  5. Bingo Bango Boingo

    Describes every Liberal government in living memory, particularly the Howard government which expanded the welfare state massively and ensured relatively steep rates of taxation for high income earners for generations to come. How is this class warfare, again?

    BBB

  6. .

    Because it is. Why do you think we’re chopping down the rotting corpse swinging in the breeze?

    We’re not in the ALP and aren’t required to make such a ritualised sacrifice every time we criticise the ALP.

  7. daddy dave

    How is this class warfare, again?

    The language. She’s explicitly saying that rich people should fork out more people to help those in need. She softens it by including herself as a “high income earner” but her meaning is unmistakeable.

  8. Peter Patton

    Class warfare pig’s ass.

  9. Class warfare? Really? You don’t say. 🙂

  10. C.L.

    St Vincent de Paul society weighs in:

    ‘VICTORIANS are feeling the brunt of the nation’s fastest-rising electricity and gas bills…’

    Just in case your power bill wasn’t high enough already…

    Should be interesting watching our childless Prime
    Minister Bob Brown and his deputy, Julia Gillard, sell the necessity of making everything even more expensive for families.

    The ALP: they hate the poor.

  11. john malpas

    Come the cold winter and pensioners wont be able to afford heating . So up goes their death rate and solves the much touted ‘aging population ‘ problem.

  12. Rococo Liberal

    SInclair

    I truly believe this statement qualifies the PM for the C word.

    The Labor way? The way of mediocre incompetents and lying tossers with the intellectual capacity of flea.

  13. Jarrah

    “St Vincent de Paul society weighs in”

    For a second you were going to cite the society’s well-known views on the subject of poverty, causes thereof, and solutions to same:

    We are a progressive social movement…We believe that governments have an obligation to use all the means at their disposal not only to provide all the essential social services to people but also to take the necessary steps to prevent exclusion and poverty in the first place. While we are committed to providing charitable assistance and while no work of charity is foreign to the Society, we must not perpetuate the situation where people have no alternative but to rely on charity…
    If wealth is correctly understood here as access to appropriate housing, health, education, childcare, transport, employment, social security and wholeness I would simply add that, in order to achieve this, there must be a massive redistribution of hope along with the redistribution of wealth.

    the prevention of homelessness should be seen as a matter of justice, and for that charity is no substitute…The absence of political will is the fundamental obstacle to ending homelessness. A good place to begin would be to guarantee everyone the right to adequate housing. Since the private rental market is notoriously bad at this, governments must do what markets cannot…As a nation, we need to take responsibility for making sure that not only is no one turned away from a homelessness service but also that no one is turned away from access to adequate housing, healthcare, education, support and employment opportunities.

    St Vincent de Paul Society – class warriors!

    http://www.vinnies.org.au/articles-reports-and-speeches-national?link=252

  14. lotocoti

    How long before Vanguard of the Proletariat gets trotted out?
    high-income earners like you and me do get asked to look after ourselves – and we can.
    And there’s me thinking I was paying for her to have staff to look after that sort of thing.

  15. Gabrielle

    I’m a Labor Prime Minister

    So only a PM for 50% of the population.
    Peculiar choice of words. I thought she was an Australian PM.

    On the upside, since she’s not the Liberal PM, that justifies a carbon tax exemption for all Libs.

  16. C.L.

    JArrah, I don’t really understand the purpose of the lengthy blockquote from SVDP National Council Chief Executive, Dr John Falzon (a bibliographical detail you should have included for such a lengthy paste).

    Labor is making life harder for the poor and the St Vincent de Paul Society doesn’t like it.

    Gillard simply doesn’t care. Why should she? She lives with her boyfriend in a subsidised mansion.

  17. daddy dave

    We do things in a Labor way, which means fairly

    What she’s doing, Gab, is signalling that she stands for something. The subtext is, I’m acting according to my ideological roots. Unfortunately this is undercut by all the things she said during the election campaign.
    The Canberra Press Gallery seem to think that it’s all fine, but they’ve merely talked themselves into believing that Gillard isn’t a train wreck. This is going to play very, very badly out there in swinging-voter land.

  18. AJ

    The tax is pointless bullshit. But if this statement is class warfare pretty much everything cuddlier than Ayn Rand is radical Marxism, including Christian charity and noblesse oblige.

  19. Jarrah

    “I don’t really understand the purpose of the lengthy blockquote”

    Do you need a TL;DR? Here you go – SVDP advocates taxing the rich to give money and services to the poor.

    They don’t like Gillard making things worse for the poor, but they are totally on board with her view that “when we do things fairly that means we assist people with the most needs, and high-income earners like you and me do get asked to look after ourselves – and we can.”

    St Vincent de Paul Society – class warriors!

  20. THR

    If progressive income tax, a policy broadly shared by all parties in Australia, is to be considered ‘class warfare’, then sure it’s of the most tepid and attenuated variety. What next – business owners who charge on a sliding scale are now revolutionaries?

  21. C.L.

    John Calzon isn’t the St Vincent de Paul Society, Jarrah. Do you know anyone who works for St Vinnies? I do – Abbott fans about three-quarters of them.

  22. .

    There’s a big difference between trade and taxation.

    Soaking the rich is dopey. Just work out what actually needs to be spent (be it generous/a far better designed welfare system than we have got), and then raise revenue with the best tax system you can find to a balanced budget over the cycle. It ought to be efficient (i.e no payroll tax or other inefficient revenue bases), equitable (i.e no excise tax)and not punish reward for effort or risk (i.e no progressive taxation).

    Unless you think taxing the wealthy at usurious rates has a practical, absolute-poverty-terms outcome.

  23. .

    C.L.,

    The St Vinnie youth workers I knew were heavily into rave nights, one night stands or were otherwise rug munchers.

    The non rug munching element were conservative as they liked their sex and drugs, they realised more being taxed more meant less consumption. They wanted the little SFs to get a job and stay out of gaol etc…

  24. C.L.

    “…high-income earners like you and me do get asked to look after ourselves – and we can.”

    Well, yes – when, like Julia, Bob and Penny, you have no children, no fuel bills, no school fees, no significant grocery bills, no teenager expenditure, no parentally subsidised screw-ups, “we can”!

  25. .

    I hate it when pundits use “real world” as an epithet, but there is a good place to do so C.L.

    If we had gay adoption, the problem wouldn’t be so bad.

  26. Jarrah

    “Abbott fans about three-quarters of them.”

    Not everything is about Labor vs Liberal, you know. I’m just sending up Sinclair’s hilarious title. Perhaps your famous sense of humour is failing you.

  27. Quentin George

    If you’re trying, as Jules and the Greens are, to “change behaviour” why would you compensate people?

  28. JC.

    Not everything is about Labor vs Liberal, you know.

    Dude, you’re kidding right. The left politicizes a visit to the urinal.

  29. C.L.

    I’m still at a loss to really understand what you’re talking about, Jarrah.

    You seem miffed that Sinclair has correctly called the Rodent out for undergraduate us-v-themism.

    Has this got something to do with Lateran abatement?

  30. JC.

    If you’re trying, as Jules and the Greens are, to “change behaviour” why would you compensate people?

    QG

    The theory behind such a tax is to modify behaveior with the hope that the extra tax will persuade consumption and investment in lower carbon in energy.

    However it doesn’t work, as we’ve seen Europe with a cap and trade and has not assisted any new technological innovation other than the usual rent seeking suspects like the putrid subsidy whores: solar and wind.

    There is no evidence of a tax creating new technologies in past history.

    Dot’s advice earlier is the best direction to go as it would be GDP positive, thereby raising living standards and lowering emissions.

    The sad thing is we’re not adopting, as it would really fuck over the left seeing they would have no answer for it.

  31. Quentin George

    No argument from me on your points, JC, but I’m just pointing out that if the behaviour argument isn’t bogus, the tax has to hit EVERYONE. If you compensate low income earners, they won’t change their behaviour.

    Julia doesn’t have the guts to admit that though – since it would mean an ALP primary vote of 25%. If they’re lucky.

  32. AJ

    No argument from me on your points, JC, but I’m just pointing out that if the behaviour argument isn’t bogus, the tax has to hit EVERYONE. If you compensate low income earners, they won’t change their behaviour.

    This shouldn’t be true in theory. Even if you compensate people with the exact increase in their electricity bill, people should respond to increased prices by using less electricity and treat what compensation is leftover like any other income.

  33. Quentin George

    AJ – There would be very few people who are going to stop using electrical devices as a cost saving measure. More likely they’ll cut out other expenses first – and spend a lot more time at home.

  34. C.L.

    As far as I know – leaving aside the Amish and North Korea – the Australian Labor Party is the first political party in the world to come out against electricity since it was harnessed by man.

  35. hc

    Not right JC. Prices do affect technology choices. There is evidence electricity generators are already factoring a medium term price on carbon of about $34 per tone into planned investment decisions. Indeed they were already doing this before the Gillard tax.

    The first switch is from coal to gas. It’s happening because generators know carbon pricing is inevitable.

    CL propounds his usual lying idiocy. No one is condemning electricity – indeed a big forecast increase in electricity demands is forecast as motorists are induced to switch to hybrids. The problem is carbon emissions as you well know.

  36. C.L.

    Lying idiocy. LOL. That’s an amusing insult coming from a defender of the Rodent.

    Tell us, Harry, by addressing the ‘problem’ of cabon emissions, by how much will this Julia’s new anti-energy tax lessen the temperature of the planet?

    A ball-park figure will do.

  37. hc

    The Vatican moron keeps repeating the description of Gillard as a rodent -the same language the Nazis used to dehumanise the Jews. In keeping with your general character.

    Like the Nazis too CL keeps repeating idiotic questions even when they are answered 1000 times. He thinks his damaging views will stick if he repeats them enough.

    CL is also talented at substituting one lie for another – the first was that the ALP is anti electricity, the second that individual countries can opt out of measures to control emissions when their pollution is a small part of the total – when the first claim is seen to be stupid. Of course the countries of the world need to collectively cut carbon emissions drastically. That will involve many countries making cuts including countries like Australia which have high per capital emissions.

    But it is pointless to reason. What’s your next lie CL? Or will you divert to a bit of stupid abuse about cow farts – yet another repeated lie.

  38. Adrian

    more virulent insults from hc.

    a number of points:

    1. in the longrun natural gas will not achieve the CO2 reductions demanded by the Greens and the ALP left. a recent pro-global warming report from MIT even admitted as much (no link),
    2. the greens and now the ALP have opposed recent coal seam and other natual gas proposals in NSW, QLD and Vic – most to do with fraccing,
    3. the greens and the ALP have ruled out nuclear and coal or natural gas caputure and storage and hate hydro,
    4. the only options left are solar, wind and a bunch of other dead end technologies, many of which are not really renewable and don’t have a great record producing energy that people can either use or afford,
    5. when that fails, as it already is, we will be on carbon and therefore electricity rationing.

  39. Fran Barlow

    AJ said:

    This shouldn’t be true in theory. Even if you compensate people with the exact increase in their electricity bill, people should respond to increased prices by using less electricity and treat what compensation is leftover like any other income.

    Just so. Unless they use 100% of the compensation to buy back the energy their behaviour has changed.

    It’s the opposite of a loyalty scheme. A loyalty scheme reduces the marginal cost of goods as an inducement to payting the intially higher price. At Shoes and Sox for example, you get your sixth pair of shoes free, even though the first five pairs are slightly more expensive. The certificates you get are an illiquid asset since you can redeem them only at Shoes and Sox and if you don’t, you lose.

    With a price on Co2, the marginal cost rises but the price impost is returned in compensation — so you now have a liquid asset — cash, which you can use to repurchase the same goods and services at higher cost, or to purchase something else (or save the money) after choosing to cut your consumption. You can also use the compensation to purchase cleaner energy at higher cost.

  40. .

    Not right JC. Prices do affect technology choices. There is evidence electricity generators are already factoring a medium term price on carbon of about $34 per tone into planned investment decisions. Indeed they were already doing this before the Gillard tax.

    I don’t know if this proves the point or really just shows how expectations work…

  41. .

    Fran,

    You’re receptive to the fact that policies can be seen as the flip side to each other.

    How about a 30 year tax exemption/rebate for the extent you are carbon neutral? A person who was 95% carbon neutral would get 95% of their taxes rebated. A firm which was 70% carbon neutral would get 70% of their net tax liability waived.

    What’s not to like? Your ilk seem adamant must be done. Please don’t buy into willfully destructive policies when better things can be done.

  42. C.L.

    Nazis!

    Harry the soon-to-be superannuated Bill Henson admirer and bovine flatulence catastrophist wins the Godwin’s award.

    ‘Lying Rodent’ is a phrase I pinched from George Brandis – who rather famously used it to describe an earlier prime minister.

    Nothing to do with Jews – so Harry is again lying.

    Hitler did rail against ‘the Vatican’ like you, though.

    How a foul-mouthed old moron like you holds down a job in academe, Harry (albeit La Trobe), is a mystery to me. Your generation really benefited from the tenured sheltered workshop.

    Look, as I said, I find it amusing to see you using words like ‘lie’ when you’re defending the Rodent.

    And I still want an answer to my question: to wit, by how much will Julia’s new carbon tax reduce the temperature of the planet?

  43. hc

    Have you thought of something to clean those brain cells dot. People investing in long lived assets (like power stations) respond to expected prices over the long term not current prices. People in the power industry know that carbon pricing will come. They guess at prices will be so they can make technological choices.

    Carbon prices must be set and made credible.

  44. .

    Have you thought of something to clean those brain cells dot.

    Before you decided to make a complete and utter berk of yourself, all I was saying was you made a general point rather than a specific one.

    “Carbon prices must be set and made credible”

    Why? they are already being set as you say.

  45. Fran Barlow

    Dot said:

    How about a 30 year tax exemption/rebate for the extent you are carbon neutral? A person who was 95% carbon neutral would get 95% of their taxes rebated. A firm which was 70% carbon neutral would get 70% of their net tax liability waived.

    There’s no mechanism in that to drive the technological change needed. Counter-proposal:

    We draw up a dirty energy benchmark (DEB) for both stationary and transport energy based on the commercial scale best practice. Any business that improves on that gets to deduct their energy expenditure from their tax bill to the extent of the improvement. Beat it by 10% and you deduct 10% of your bill etc … You also abolish diesel fuel rebate, salary packaging on vehicles, LPG conversion subsidies etc.

    The pool of funds freed-up gets returned in full measure in cash or means tested non-discretionary services (e.g. housing, education, public transport, dental, health, food and grocery staples, perhaps via a smart card) to people on or below AFTWE. Compensation phases out at about 120% of AFTWE.

    All fuel excises, sales taxes on vehicle parts, tariffs, stamp duties, CTP, road tax, registration fees beyond pure processing etc are abolished. Instead, transponders or similar are placed in vehicles and people log in biometrically to drive them. Everyone is charged a fee to use the roads based on road contention, tare, driver compliance, driver skill, vehicle type, emissions of aerosols and particulate apart from H20. Funds raised are hypothecated to public transport, road maintenance and compliance, the accident and trauma and physiotherapy units of hospitals and to third part personal injury liability and support of medium-high density public housing and housing coops meeting suitable criteria on sustainability and social inclusion.

    The vehicles are fitted with the technology to impose first a warning and then an infringement for speeding, running red lights and stop signs, crossing unbroken separation lines. The vehicle is equipped with the ability to detect someone with PCA and can require the driver to submit to a breath test from a unit placed in the driver’s seat and which sits in front of the driver’s lips while driving.

    Fine amounts are reduced but escalate rapidly if compliance is not achieved and can even progressively shut down the vehicle’s EMS if non-compliance persists. Those who avoid getting warnings for 6 months get extra points and a cut in their per distance road costs.

    Sounds good to me. We get a cut in a whole raft of taxes and charges, much better compliance, safer roads, and better services.

    If we got that done, the need for a separate carbon price would be seriously reduced because there would be drivers of technological and behaviour change in both stationary and transport energy. It would also be tidier because we would not be taxing/charging while allowing deductions.

  46. dover_beach

    There’s no mechanism in that to drive the technological change needed.

    It’s precisely the same mechanism as a carbon tax, just reversed.

  47. FDB

    “It’s precisely the same mechanism as a carbon tax, just reversed.”

    Maths fail. Not yours, dot’s.

    What is “zero percent carbon neutral”? If you don’t know where zero is, how do you place anything on a continuum between there and 100?

    “Carbon neutral” ishard enough to define – “carbon excessive” (let’s call it), is completely open-ended by definition.

    The only sensible thing to do is what Fran suggests – calculate current (best-practice or average) emissions for a particular type of economic activity, and use that as a benchmark.

  48. Hasn’t DOT previously advised that coal fired power generation is subsidized in Aus? If so, remove those and in part subsidize other modes of power generation, pocket the rest.

    People don’t get it, at least not yet. If the models are to be trusted, and by golly that is a big IF, as a recent study from the Uni of Washington asserted, even IF we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, IF the models are correct the earth will keep warming for decades if not centuries. So IF anything should be done, it should be to promote the creation of different forms of energy production. Given the very real probability of bipartisan support for nuclear, that is worth thinking about subsidizing, if only for feasibility purposes. Yes, alternative energy sources will also help. People may not know it but there is some very interesting research that indicates we could have hydrogen generation at home via solar to drive our cars. I do certainly think that we should get rid of carbon cars, those fuckers have to go and bogans be damned.

    I do *believe* that warming is happening. I don’t believe the models or the predictions, be they climatic or economic.

  49. .

    No FDB you are dead wrong. It’s not a maths fail. It’s a conceptual fail on your behalf.

    You’re arguing a subsidy isn’t an implicit tariff for competitors.

    Fran is also arguing this, in the face of hundreds of years of established and empirical trade theory.

    “There’s no mechanism in that to drive the technological change needed.”

    Then the tax has no mechanism either. Such a subsidy would actually be many times greater in magnitude than an ETS/tax unless they were levied at usuriously high and unequivocally damaging levels.

    Fran – you also require perfect information. It won’t work. All I require is people to fill in some sort of tax return which can be audited.

  50. .

    John,

    I’m not actually sure about coal fired power, but its customers in industry are, either explicitly (directly as in aluminium) or implicitly (non market, sub economic rates which are loss leading).

  51. entropy

    Look the incompetents lied, and should go to an election to get a mandate for such a gross reversal of policy, which as it stands is a breach of faith.

    But it does show a very unfortunate reality of the political economy. Ironically, the only way that power generators can get ‘certainty’ for long term investments is to get a carbon tax, as a commitment to not introduce one cannot be believed if it is the left in power, and a commitment by the right not to introduce one only lasts as long as they are in power. Hobson’s choice.

    And that leaves aside the sad reality that even if a carbon tax is introduced, there will be no ‘certainty’ as to the rate, so it is doubtful the power generators would be any better off. These fools do not realise what they do.

    But while I do not agree with the details of what Fran is proposing, I think Dot is wrong too.

    A carbon neutral tax exemption would fail to achieve its goals for precisely the same reason an ETS would also fail. The difficulty in verifying the truth of actual carbon credits.

    Both ‘solutions’ would end up with a conga line of mendicant lobbyists trekking to Canberra with a multitude of reasons as to why their client is ‘special’ and should get special treatment.

    And then there would be the fraudsters with the fake carbon credits, and the carpet baggers selling the next big thing in technological change that only needs a few dollars in subsidy to get it kick started, both of which would require that a fortune and the associated massive bureaucracy would have to be used to police them.

    In my view the only thing that will work is a consumption based carbon tax, that operates like the GST. That way the end consumer pays the carbon tax, and exporters are netted at the point of export. No need for special treatment of vulnerable industries for reasons not related to emissions.

    And the rate would be set low to eliminate the need for compensation, which let’s face it, wrecks the ability of the tax to influence behaviour. The revenue could be used for promoting new tech by basic research in new tech (not products!), a la Lomberg, but with sane amounts of money

  52. C.L.

    New front in Gillard’s class war:

    Push to expose true wealth of schools.

    THE Federal Government is set to launch a new war with private schools this week as pressure intensifies on the country’s richest education establishments to reveal their assets.

    Education Minister Peter Garrett told The Sunday Mail that he wanted to force public and private schools to reveal their true wealth, including assets, reserves and profits.

    The launch of the revamped My School website on Friday will reveal financial information – including income through private fees – for the first time, but not assets.

    The website will also show that wealthy private schools are spending 50 per cent more to educate each student than the average spend on a child at a public school.

  53. Infidel Tiger

    THE Federal Government is set to launch a new war with private schools this week as pressure intensifies on the country’s richest education establishments to reveal their assets.

    “Thanks to BER we now have a bike shed that’s worth approximately $3.5mill. Unfortunately it’s not able to store bikes.”

  54. If the models are to be trusted, and by golly that is a big IF, as a recent study from the Uni of Washington asserted, even IF we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, IF the models are correct the earth will keep warming for decades if not centuries. So IF anything should be done, it should be to promote the creation of different forms of energy production.

    Hear hear!

  55. Myrddin Seren

    And what do we make of this ?:

    “LABOR is preparing a multibillion-dollar carbon tax compensation package that could leave up to 2.6 million low-income households better off and a further 1.7 million middle-income households no worse off.”

    Looks like an income redistribution scheme to me ?

    Note to all those who think they will only enjoy upside on this plan. Given past efforts – I wouldn’t trust Treasury’s fearless independent modelling of the impacts more than I would WWF doing the job.

    The costs will roll through the economy and at the end of the day, the winners will probably be losers too.

    Black is white, cold is hot, poor is rich, lies are truth. Hail Big Sister.

  56. C.L.

    So they’re talking money off people to discourage ‘global warming’ and then giving it back to them anyway.

    This ingenius scheme is designed to lower the planet’s temperature – which its supporters say it won’t do anyway.

    I’ve described modern liberalism as a mental illness and here we see another demonstration of what I mean.

  57. JC.

    Education Minister Peter Garrett told The Sunday Mail that he wanted to force public and private schools to reveal their true wealth, including assets, reserves and profits.

    Why?

    With Lurch in charge of ed it’s going to be a riot.

  58. JC.

    Bobster stating the obvious.

    BOB Hawke has been caught out speculating about the Labor leadership, saying Julia Gillard “will not go the distance” and Greg Combet is the party’s next leader.

    Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop claims the former prime minister was frank in his pessimistic assessment of Gillard’s leadership at a University of Western Australia Valentine’s Day foundation dinner in Perth.

    When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Hawke denied he had written off Ms Gillard, but confirmed he did think Mr Combet would be her successor.

    “Look, I am very satisfied with the leadership we’ve got. If the position became vacant? He (Combet) would be excellent material,” Mr Hawke said.

  59. C.L.

    “Look, I am very satisfied with the leadership we’ve got.”

    Last thing Bill Hayden heard before the knife went through his ribs (from behind).

  60. JC.

    I bet this war against the private schools is because they’re short of money and are looking for all sorts of ways to cover it up. By asserting the private schools are rich and able to afford being on their own they think they will be able to soften the electorate to removing student funding.

    These clowns are panicking.

  61. JC.

    Lurch is also a lying sack of shit. Private schools have to prepare accounts in order to satisfy government funding as that isn’t offered blindly.

    I recall receiving school annual reports.

    Lurch deserves a serious slap across his bald head for being a dishonest turd.

  62. C.L.

    I do really see it as fiscally driven, JC. (Though it wouldn’t surprise me if they announced an Underprivileged School Equality Tax next week).

    It’s part of a more general strategy. The recrudescence of Al Grasby multiculturalism came first. And now we see 1950s-style hate-mongering centered on schools and class. They’re trying to convince inner-city latte zombies to come back to the fold of a socialist, anti-capitalist, rich folk-hatin’ party.

  63. C.L.

    Oops. I DON’T really see it as fiscally driven…

  64. Myrddin Seren

    Also a nice dose of private school bashing will likely be expected to distract attention of the commentariat from the carbon tax lies – urrr – strategic redeployment.

    Garrett is launching a diversionary attack.

  65. The ALP does a strategic review. Howes bashes shiny arsed bosses. Gillard announces a new tax, but with compo for the lowly. We’re a labor government she says. Combet repeats the we’re a labor government mantra. Low income people better off. High income earners to pay. Garret starts the bash on private schools.

    It’s pretty simple back to the barricades ALP stuff. The Libs should be able to slow roast this stuff if they are disciplined. Which is the problem I suppose x

  66. Peter Patton

    Education Minister Peter Garrett told The Sunday Mail that he wanted to force public and private schools to reveal their true wealth, including assets, reserves and profits.

    From the “Labor” dude whose own kids attend Australia’s most expensive and socially elite girl’s boarding school.

  67. Peter Patton

    So IF anything should be done, it should be to promote the creation of different forms of energy production.

    Alternatively, people could STFU about this tedious subject, and adopt the Patton Strategy. If it gets too hot, just move.

  68. C.L.

    Right. The utter gall of that snobbish dickhead, Greg Combet, telling people what to do in their own homes. Unplug this, buy that, don’t use this.

    Remember when lefties used to protest about governments snooping around your home?

    Now they’re OK with it. In fact it’s funny.

  69. If those who run private schools had guts the kids of ALP pollies would be punted on monday morning.

  70. JC.

    It’s freaking incredible at the audacity of Combet to be talking to people like that.

    Does that prick shut down his ac in the office or home? Does he shut down his ac in his car?

    Has he told his parents or in-laws they should turn down the ac/use less electricity.

    The audacity of these people is jaw-dropping.

    Hey Greg Combet, I know you’re probably reading this because like New Jersey Governor said, all politicians have Google alert activated to check what is being said about them.

    Go screw yourself and your freaking low rent party. We’ll use as much energy as we want and no amount of your insincere hypocritical posturing will change that.

  71. Dandy Warhol

    “These clowns are panicking.”

    “Garrett is launching a diversionary attack.”

    Both right. They have no good ideas, no successes to which they can point, and people can see right through them. As a consequence their polling is disastrous.

    Hence the switch to Clown O’Clock tactics. Which makes it all the more likely that the woeful Gillard will get the arse.

  72. JC.

    Dandy

    But I can’t see how they can turf her out without the Bobbsey twins (Windsor and Oakeshott) walking away as they quite specifically said they would terminate their support if there was another putsch.

  73. Rococo Liberal

    The current government is looking mjore and more like the Whitlam government as each day passes. The are completely stupid, incompetent and corrupt.

  74. C.L.

    Not sure what the other state Sunday papers led with today but on the front page of today’s Sunday Mail, the headline is ‘Bright Spark’ – showing a picture of Greg Combet’s head inside a lightbulb – followed by a mocking tone about his advice to turn things off.

  75. Myrddin Seren

    JC

    The Bobbseys will terminate their support – unless of course there is a better offer but on the table.

  76. Gabrielle

    The Bobbsey Twins won’t terminate their support because they will be offered a better deal.

  77. Dandy Warhol

    JC where will Bobbsey Dipshotte go? Force an early election and find himself soon after at the local Centrelink dusting off his resume?

    If the Laborites can sell him PM Shorten or PM ‘Bright Spark’ Combet, I suspect he’ll take it. He doesn’t have too many options.

    Windsor is another matter.

    However, they’ve both shown themselves to be happy to sell out to the highest bidder. Maybe finding their price (again) is all Labor would need to do.

  78. Dandy Warhol

    I can remember the PM quite specifically saying that she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax!

    The Bobbsey Twins will just find some way to rationalise their broken promise, and as always the Press Gallery will give them a pass, preferring to chuck mud at Tony Abbott over some minor apparent indiscretion.

  79. Gabrielle

    Dandy says: “I can remember the PM quite specifically saying that she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax!”

    Gillard’s response this week:

    ”I think the Australian people voted for me knowing I believe climate change is real and that I was determined to act on it, and that the Labor way of acting on it was to price carbon”.

    Dandy, stop lying.

  80. Dandy Warhol

    The obvious follow up question is ‘Well then why did you promise not to introduce a carbon tax?’

    Good luck getting an answer to that.

    Actually good luck getting one of the press gallery morons to be bright enough to even think of such a question.

  81. JC.

    I think the Australian people voted for me knowing I believe climate change is real and that I was determined to act on it, and that the Labor way of acting on it was to price carbon”.

    Yea right. Swandive and Duck Bum have always been a the forefront of the AGW movement. AGW activists. LOL.

  82. dover_beach

    Then Gillard did not merely break a promise, she also told a bold-face lie. Whatever it takes.

  83. Dandy Warhol

    Exactly DB.

    The only surprise is that anyone is surprised.

  84. Gabrielle

    The obvious follow up question is ‘Well then why did you promise not to introduce a carbon tax?’

    Alan Jones asked her that question 9 times in the interview this week.

    She never answered the question.

    She had the audacity to say “Don’t try to mislead the Australian people, Alan”.

  85. paul walter

    Taking a long view, class warfare will continue in multifarious forms quite in spite of what Gillard , Howard or any one else says. I say multifarious, because different groups have different conceptions of what will work as a universal fix, eg some of the left are with the neolibs on pop growth whereas some the left will opt for low pop, along with some neo cons and libertarians. I never liked Kemp much but his earlier political thesis that the traditional electorate structure was cracking is born out over the last thirty years. The battle has been fought out for the last generation between Thatcherists and the soft left in the west, but also deindustrialisation means that industrial struggle has offshored to the third world, hence much of the turmoil elsewhere, overlaying an already complex mix od uneven growth, nationalism, binding, clashing or uncoalescing with conservatism or traditionalisn and even tribal imperatives.
    An not sure am happy with the US’s refusal to support democratic aspirations in the middle east either; some times those with a little to give could consider giving a little, with all the misery in the world.
    Leave Ebenezer Scrooge in his pine box, where he belongs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *