Comments on Tony Abbott “ALP should forget light on hill and follow Hawke”, 22/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/alp-should-forget-light-on-hill-and-follow-hawke/story-e6frg6zo-1225927537315
Abbott has performed very well since becoming the opposition leader, brought down a prime minster and almost another PM in the recent election, partly due to his stance against the ETS and branding that as a big carbon tax.
However, now the situation has changed in Australia. An election was over and the Gillard government is returned with the support of the Greens and three independents.
While it is possible that the government may not last for the full term, but that is only possibility and not certainty.
The government and the Greens may be able to get a carbon tax through the parliament.
The opposition should prepare for the possibility of a full term Gillard government, while working to aim to become government if an opportunity appears.
In this circumstance, it would be in the interest of the opposition to be constructive on a number of policy areas where it has had very different policies from the last government, such as climate change and the mining tax.
For climate change, it should look at ways to hold the government to account by forcing it to minimise costs, such as a revenue-neutral (by returning the revenue to people) and trade-neutral carbon tax.
For the mining tax, it should try to hold the government to account by forcing it to consider and move to profit based tax with a slight increase in the level of tax, that is, close to revenue-neutral. That means the tax rate should adjust when mineral prices fall to avoid the case in the future the taxation may be too low as compared to the current royalties in the States.
The profit tax should replace the State current royalties with appropriate compensations for their revenue losses.
Showing posts with label Abbott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abbott. Show all posts
2010-09-07
Still a close call between Labor and the coalition
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Coalition MPs find reasons to believe”, 7/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-mps-find-reasons-to-believe/comments-fn59niix-1225915175930
It would be in their interests to support the coalition from gaming point of view: each of them would be more important when they are with the coalition than with Labor, because 76 is the minimum majority needed and 77 would mean one is potentially redundant.
That logic is premised on them understanding that number gaming.
I think the coalition would be able to offer them with a better package than Labor, purely because they are more conservative and should have more fire power with the same revenue bottom line.
However, Labor has some distinctive advantages with its current policy setting openly on the table over that of the coalition, mainly in terms of its NBN.
So far, Gillard seemed to have made better progress in negotiations, but may have made a strategic mistake to leave the independent trio in such a number gaming.
Abbott was right to focus more on the trio with strong rural supports. But he has so far got nothing to show his success in negotiations yet. Maybe it is the last straw that he hopes to have and use to break the camel’s back (get over the line).
Who knows!
The trio keeps us suspended and guessing!
They have been having a very good time for themselves and they clearly enjoy that!
It would be in their interests to support the coalition from gaming point of view: each of them would be more important when they are with the coalition than with Labor, because 76 is the minimum majority needed and 77 would mean one is potentially redundant.
That logic is premised on them understanding that number gaming.
I think the coalition would be able to offer them with a better package than Labor, purely because they are more conservative and should have more fire power with the same revenue bottom line.
However, Labor has some distinctive advantages with its current policy setting openly on the table over that of the coalition, mainly in terms of its NBN.
So far, Gillard seemed to have made better progress in negotiations, but may have made a strategic mistake to leave the independent trio in such a number gaming.
Abbott was right to focus more on the trio with strong rural supports. But he has so far got nothing to show his success in negotiations yet. Maybe it is the last straw that he hopes to have and use to break the camel’s back (get over the line).
Who knows!
The trio keeps us suspended and guessing!
They have been having a very good time for themselves and they clearly enjoy that!
2010-09-04
Strategic gaming in forming a minority government
Comments on Peter van Onselen “Labor ahead in strategic power game” 4/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-ahead-in-strategic-power-game/story-e6frg6zo-1225914014166
The strategic game has not necessarily been won by Gillard yet. To the contrary, the current state of play may present a dilemma for the other trio independents and could prove strategically fatal for Gillard.
Just consider it is a game for the trio as a whole - would they be more important to Gillard or Abbott now?
To Gillard, one of them may be redundant and therefore they could be divided on different issues and as a result they would lose out collectively if they support Gillard.
On the other hand, each and every one of them would be indispensable under Abbott and would have to be accommodated all the time. There is no case or condition that they could be divided and conquered at all.
So from their point of view, which is the best for them?
It is obviously it is the one to support Abbott.
Further, with $1 billion offer from Abbott for the other independent now unnecessary and unused, the three independents would have even more to gain.
A better and much superior gaming for Gillard could have been to secure the support of that independent and keep it undisclosed until after the securing of the other trio independents!
So it appears that Gillard is to clever by half as opposed to strategically smart!I could be wrong, but it is highly likely that now Abbott will form the government.
PS: the announcement of the last agreement was a win for that independent, but a loss for Gillard.
The strategic game has not necessarily been won by Gillard yet. To the contrary, the current state of play may present a dilemma for the other trio independents and could prove strategically fatal for Gillard.
Just consider it is a game for the trio as a whole - would they be more important to Gillard or Abbott now?
To Gillard, one of them may be redundant and therefore they could be divided on different issues and as a result they would lose out collectively if they support Gillard.
On the other hand, each and every one of them would be indispensable under Abbott and would have to be accommodated all the time. There is no case or condition that they could be divided and conquered at all.
So from their point of view, which is the best for them?
It is obviously it is the one to support Abbott.
Further, with $1 billion offer from Abbott for the other independent now unnecessary and unused, the three independents would have even more to gain.
A better and much superior gaming for Gillard could have been to secure the support of that independent and keep it undisclosed until after the securing of the other trio independents!
So it appears that Gillard is to clever by half as opposed to strategically smart!I could be wrong, but it is highly likely that now Abbott will form the government.
PS: the announcement of the last agreement was a win for that independent, but a loss for Gillard.
2010-08-23
If no triumph for Abbott, what about Gillard?
Comments on Michael Gawenda “This is no triumph for Abbott”, 23/08/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Election-2010-hung-parliament-Gillard-Labor-Abbott-pd20100823-8KSTS?OpenDocument&src=sph
While Michael Gawenda's analysis may have some appeal to some, it is nevertheless very one-sided and biased.
Let me state first that I am not political either way, but as a reasonably neutral observer. I have no ill feelings towards Gillard. To the contrary, I think she is a good PM material. But this is an election not just for one person, but for parties.
Yes, it is the fact that the coalition should have won a majority seats but didn't.
But the same is true that a first term government has lost its majority. In that sense, it could be said that it has lost the moral authority to govern. Clearly it has lost the confidence and trust of the voters.
For a first term government that should be fatal, if Australia history is used to judge the result of the election.
On the primary votes, it is bankrupt. The reason it didn’t fare too bad on the two party preferred basis may be some voters didn’t want to admit that they made a mistake in the 2007 election in voting the ALP into government.
While politics is rarely like this, Gillard should have the courage to give up the prime ministership to acknowledge Rudd and her government huge failures.
While Michael Gawenda's analysis may have some appeal to some, it is nevertheless very one-sided and biased.
Let me state first that I am not political either way, but as a reasonably neutral observer. I have no ill feelings towards Gillard. To the contrary, I think she is a good PM material. But this is an election not just for one person, but for parties.
Yes, it is the fact that the coalition should have won a majority seats but didn't.
But the same is true that a first term government has lost its majority. In that sense, it could be said that it has lost the moral authority to govern. Clearly it has lost the confidence and trust of the voters.
For a first term government that should be fatal, if Australia history is used to judge the result of the election.
On the primary votes, it is bankrupt. The reason it didn’t fare too bad on the two party preferred basis may be some voters didn’t want to admit that they made a mistake in the 2007 election in voting the ALP into government.
While politics is rarely like this, Gillard should have the courage to give up the prime ministership to acknowledge Rudd and her government huge failures.
2010-08-20
Let's hope positives after rather a negative campaign
Comments on Matthew Franklin and Patricia Karvelas “Gillard and Abbott resort to scare campaigns to finish election”, 20/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-and-abbott-resort-to-scare-campaigns-to-finish-election/story-fn59niix-1225907702732
The leaders of the two main political parties are resorting to scares and negative campaigns at the eve of the election.
It shows the lack of a clear vision with effective policies from both sides.
But it is the government that is more problematic, because it has been running out of ideas to use its positive achievements in the past 3 years.
It is a legacy of the change in the prime ministership in June.
It is also a result of poor political judgement that had to rush to the polls to capitalise on the honeymoon of Australia’s first female prime minister. Instead, the government, especially the prime minister should have allowed the prime minister more time to demonstrate her ability.
Of the three major issues she stated to resolve at her first prime minister press conference, namely the mining tax, the boats and climate change, only one can be said to have been resolved by her reasonably satisfactorily.
The East Timor offshore processing centre has been a farce and there has been no progress on the climate change front beyond the silly idea of a citizens’ assembly to get consensus.
What implications does that have for the nation’s future?
Very negative indeed!
Notwithstanding that, let’s hope that whoever wins the office after the election they will get serious on policies and governing for the next three years to improve the living standard to the maximum possible and make Australia a better place to live.
The leaders of the two main political parties are resorting to scares and negative campaigns at the eve of the election.
It shows the lack of a clear vision with effective policies from both sides.
But it is the government that is more problematic, because it has been running out of ideas to use its positive achievements in the past 3 years.
It is a legacy of the change in the prime ministership in June.
It is also a result of poor political judgement that had to rush to the polls to capitalise on the honeymoon of Australia’s first female prime minister. Instead, the government, especially the prime minister should have allowed the prime minister more time to demonstrate her ability.
Of the three major issues she stated to resolve at her first prime minister press conference, namely the mining tax, the boats and climate change, only one can be said to have been resolved by her reasonably satisfactorily.
The East Timor offshore processing centre has been a farce and there has been no progress on the climate change front beyond the silly idea of a citizens’ assembly to get consensus.
What implications does that have for the nation’s future?
Very negative indeed!
Notwithstanding that, let’s hope that whoever wins the office after the election they will get serious on policies and governing for the next three years to improve the living standard to the maximum possible and make Australia a better place to live.
Two policy wishes
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Leaders prove their mettle under campaign fire”, 20/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/leaders-prove-their-mettle-under-campaign-fire/story-fn59niix-1225907494666
Both have shown a remarkable ability in the campaign.
While the public may be disappointed to see no visions from either of them due to the particular nature of the campaign, they both have been very disciplined and made nearly no mistakes.
Let's hope whoever will be the prime minster after tomorrow will continue as disciplined in government over the next 3 years.
Although they sound like dreams and are impossible to contemplate, I personally wish that:
A Gillard government would change its NBN policy, at least to build to the nodes first to test the water before further rolled out to the premises. Build to the premise will take much less time and less investment to start with and to bring benefits to more people more quickly. Further, it will allow the system to be much more flexible. Billions and possibly tens of billions dollars of taxpayers' money could/would be saved. Or
An Abbott government would adopt a market approach to emissions reduction like a carbon tax and rebate to households. Such a scheme will be much more efficient and effective than the direct government action approach advocated by the Coalition.
It would be achieved by having an independent and possibly a joint two party study/investigation into the best ways to implement those policies to allow the leaders grace to change their prior positions.
Both have shown a remarkable ability in the campaign.
While the public may be disappointed to see no visions from either of them due to the particular nature of the campaign, they both have been very disciplined and made nearly no mistakes.
Let's hope whoever will be the prime minster after tomorrow will continue as disciplined in government over the next 3 years.
Although they sound like dreams and are impossible to contemplate, I personally wish that:
A Gillard government would change its NBN policy, at least to build to the nodes first to test the water before further rolled out to the premises. Build to the premise will take much less time and less investment to start with and to bring benefits to more people more quickly. Further, it will allow the system to be much more flexible. Billions and possibly tens of billions dollars of taxpayers' money could/would be saved. Or
An Abbott government would adopt a market approach to emissions reduction like a carbon tax and rebate to households. Such a scheme will be much more efficient and effective than the direct government action approach advocated by the Coalition.
It would be achieved by having an independent and possibly a joint two party study/investigation into the best ways to implement those policies to allow the leaders grace to change their prior positions.
2010-08-12
A more independent watchdog is better
Comments on Sid Maher and Joe Kelly “Tony Abbott pledges watchdog to prevent waste of taxpayers' funds”, 12/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-pledges-watchdog-to-prevent-waste-of-taxpayers-funds/story-fn59niix-1225904249141
It is a good idea, though it is announced in the heat of an election campaign.
It is in the right direction and can be improved.
A better one is to have a unit under the control of the parliament, as compared to one under the PMC department.
If it is under the control of the parliament, it will be more independent from the government of the day, and be much more transparent and accessible.
Of course, it should be effective and not be used politically by any parties.
It should work in the interests of the nation and taxpayers.
Hope Mr Abbott will keep his promise to be a government responsible and accountable for taxpayers' money, if elected as PM.
It is a good idea, though it is announced in the heat of an election campaign.
It is in the right direction and can be improved.
A better one is to have a unit under the control of the parliament, as compared to one under the PMC department.
If it is under the control of the parliament, it will be more independent from the government of the day, and be much more transparent and accessible.
Of course, it should be effective and not be used politically by any parties.
It should work in the interests of the nation and taxpayers.
Hope Mr Abbott will keep his promise to be a government responsible and accountable for taxpayers' money, if elected as PM.
2010-08-07
Timid election and budget deficit
Comments on Paul Kelly “Post-election, we'll be heading for a train wreck”, 7/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/post-election-well-be-heading-for-a-train-wreck/story-e6frgd0x-1225902293275
This election is abnormal and strange indeed.
The prime minister has her problem and the coalition leader has his problem. As a result, each has been cautious.
Post election, it is highly likely there will be resurrection of braver leadership, irrespective who is in government.
In terms of government deficit, given the economy is doing so well now, why does the government have to produce a deficit?
We didn't have the recession and unemployment rate is low. There is no need to continue to stimulate the economy by the government.
What that means is the coalition, if elected, should have no difficulty to return to surplus.
This election is abnormal and strange indeed.
The prime minister has her problem and the coalition leader has his problem. As a result, each has been cautious.
Post election, it is highly likely there will be resurrection of braver leadership, irrespective who is in government.
In terms of government deficit, given the economy is doing so well now, why does the government have to produce a deficit?
We didn't have the recession and unemployment rate is low. There is no need to continue to stimulate the economy by the government.
What that means is the coalition, if elected, should have no difficulty to return to surplus.
2010-08-02
The election campaign - murky and confused
Comments on Craig Emerson “Phony Tony's money schemes pose a risk we can't afford”, 2/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/phony-tonys-money-schemes-pose-a-risk-we-cant-afford/story-e6frg6zo-1225899734577
It is a complex issue for the nonpartisan in the public to consider and analyse.
While Emerson is a very competent ALP minister and has performed well in the past two years, the overall records of economic management by the government in past two years, unfortunately, diminish his argument against Abbott.
The government achievement in avoiding a recession should have been a trumpet card, but has been marred by poor policy designs and implementations, shown in some of the significant failures, as well as broken promises.
It is no surprise that the election campaign so far has left many voters, especially Labor’s, bewildered.
It is a complex issue for the nonpartisan in the public to consider and analyse.
While Emerson is a very competent ALP minister and has performed well in the past two years, the overall records of economic management by the government in past two years, unfortunately, diminish his argument against Abbott.
The government achievement in avoiding a recession should have been a trumpet card, but has been marred by poor policy designs and implementations, shown in some of the significant failures, as well as broken promises.
It is no surprise that the election campaign so far has left many voters, especially Labor’s, bewildered.
2010-07-21
An interesting election
Comments on Paul Kelly “Abbott waves white flag on labour reform”, 21/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbott-waves-white-flag-on-labour-reform/story-fn59niix-1225894775175
This election appears to be one that both main parties duck their real colours.
The Prime Minister has just been on the job for a month or so. Admittedly, the past policy mistakes and the way the leadership changed are a factor.
The opposition leader has had image issues, especially with female voters. Besides, the main reasons and lessons of the last election defeat are not forgotten.
It is an election and an interesting one. Understandably they are both cautious, even though both have been strong in their beliefs.
This election appears to be one that both main parties duck their real colours.
The Prime Minister has just been on the job for a month or so. Admittedly, the past policy mistakes and the way the leadership changed are a factor.
The opposition leader has had image issues, especially with female voters. Besides, the main reasons and lessons of the last election defeat are not forgotten.
It is an election and an interesting one. Understandably they are both cautious, even though both have been strong in their beliefs.
2010-07-19
The election will be close
Comments on Paul Kelly “Labor stakes its reputation”, 18/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-stakes-its-reputation/story-fn59niix-1225893681467
This election will be very interesting indeed.
Gillard is the first female PM and this is still Labor's first term. She is also a competent minister, even though she has been part of the Rudd core. Usually, she should have been given the chance to run in her own right. But the BER has been a serious problem and that may have a deep effect on her image. The government's failures in the past two years are not too distant from voters' mind.
Abbott is a conviction politician and is honest for whatever his image may have been. Yes, his past may have been polarising to voters. He now has promised no change to IR laws, which is likely to soften his hardline image a little bit.
On big issues it is hard to distinguish the two parties. On the economy, the coalition had traditional strengths, but Labor avoided a recession for whatever costs it incurred for the future. So it is close for the two parties.
On asylum seekers, Labor is moving closer to the coalition's position and they become very close too.
On climate change, no one can tell what differences they have, and both can be seen as equally negative from general voters' point of view.
On health, it seems another close call.
So, it is likely that how Gillard and Abbott rebadge some of the key issues, such as climate change, although ironically Labor may have more flexibility in terms of changing policies (making new policies).
If they can't make a difference in doing that, then it may become how their personality and character come to play in the campaign that will determine their fate.
This election will be very interesting indeed.
Gillard is the first female PM and this is still Labor's first term. She is also a competent minister, even though she has been part of the Rudd core. Usually, she should have been given the chance to run in her own right. But the BER has been a serious problem and that may have a deep effect on her image. The government's failures in the past two years are not too distant from voters' mind.
Abbott is a conviction politician and is honest for whatever his image may have been. Yes, his past may have been polarising to voters. He now has promised no change to IR laws, which is likely to soften his hardline image a little bit.
On big issues it is hard to distinguish the two parties. On the economy, the coalition had traditional strengths, but Labor avoided a recession for whatever costs it incurred for the future. So it is close for the two parties.
On asylum seekers, Labor is moving closer to the coalition's position and they become very close too.
On climate change, no one can tell what differences they have, and both can be seen as equally negative from general voters' point of view.
On health, it seems another close call.
So, it is likely that how Gillard and Abbott rebadge some of the key issues, such as climate change, although ironically Labor may have more flexibility in terms of changing policies (making new policies).
If they can't make a difference in doing that, then it may become how their personality and character come to play in the campaign that will determine their fate.
2010-06-25
It will be a show of Labor's tigress only
Comments on Arthur Sinodinos “Can Labor's tigress change her stripes?” 25/06/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/can-labors-tigress-change-her-stripes/story-e6frg6zo-1225884022540
Potentially the more damaging slogan could be the "gang of four", or the "kitchen cabinet", that would clearly link Gillard to the Rudd era mistakes.
But it all will depend on what is done on the RSPT front, really.
If an early resolution with the miners very successfully, then Gillard will be endorsed as an effective leader to achieve good outcomes.
If the RSPT negotiations drag on and no prospects of a good resolution soon, then Gillard's link to the past will be further exposed and seen as equally incompetent as her predecessor she replaced.
So, it seems now everything is hinged on Gillard's performance and Abbott may have only a side role in the contest.
Potentially the more damaging slogan could be the "gang of four", or the "kitchen cabinet", that would clearly link Gillard to the Rudd era mistakes.
But it all will depend on what is done on the RSPT front, really.
If an early resolution with the miners very successfully, then Gillard will be endorsed as an effective leader to achieve good outcomes.
If the RSPT negotiations drag on and no prospects of a good resolution soon, then Gillard's link to the past will be further exposed and seen as equally incompetent as her predecessor she replaced.
So, it seems now everything is hinged on Gillard's performance and Abbott may have only a side role in the contest.
2010-05-19
Interesting period ahead for Australian federal politics
Comments on Matthew Franklin “Malcom Turnbull backs Tony Abbott on climate”, 19/05/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/malcom-turnbull-backs-tony-abbott-on-climate/story-e6frg6nf-1225868416369
Australian federal politics now has entered into a new phase, with Rudd in trouble and Turnbull remaining in politics.
Rudd is unlikely to turn his political fortune around.
Abbott's own leadership weaknesses mean his stay at the leadership of the Liberal Party will be temporary.
Turnbull now has probably learnt a great deal from politics from his failures at the Liberal helm and since the loss of his leadership of the coalition. He is much more mature politically and tactically, I should say.
It may be the case that both main political parties may change their top leaders either before or shortly after the coming election.
It will be interesting political stuff to observe in the next 6 months to a year or so.
Australian federal politics now has entered into a new phase, with Rudd in trouble and Turnbull remaining in politics.
Rudd is unlikely to turn his political fortune around.
Abbott's own leadership weaknesses mean his stay at the leadership of the Liberal Party will be temporary.
Turnbull now has probably learnt a great deal from politics from his failures at the Liberal helm and since the loss of his leadership of the coalition. He is much more mature politically and tactically, I should say.
It may be the case that both main political parties may change their top leaders either before or shortly after the coming election.
It will be interesting political stuff to observe in the next 6 months to a year or so.
2010-04-21
Abbott's young dole idea worth further explore
Comments on Andrew Burrell “No more dole, Tony Abbott warns the under-30s”, 21/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/no-more-dole-tony-abbott-warns-the-under-30s/story-e6frgczf-1225856154348
It is not a too bad idea, but it can be politically difficult to be a national policy.
However, it could be more realistic to use both sticks and carrots.
That is, to reduce dole payments if an identified person does not have a work and does not move to areas where there is labour shortage, with additional supports and financial incentives to encourage that person to move, or to get a local job.
The idea is worth further considerations. Some sorts of personal obligations are not too unreasonable for able recipients of young dole. But the obligations also need to be reasonable.
It is not a too bad idea, but it can be politically difficult to be a national policy.
However, it could be more realistic to use both sticks and carrots.
That is, to reduce dole payments if an identified person does not have a work and does not move to areas where there is labour shortage, with additional supports and financial incentives to encourage that person to move, or to get a local job.
The idea is worth further considerations. Some sorts of personal obligations are not too unreasonable for able recipients of young dole. But the obligations also need to be reasonable.
2010-04-12
Abbott ponders a bad move in business tax
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Abbott to woo small business with tax breaks”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/small-business/abbott-to-woo-small-business/story-e6frg9hf-1225852508785
Abbott is moving to a dangerous territory here.
It will make the company tax more complex than necessary and will be inefficient.
He will benefit from waiting to see what is in the Henry Tax Review recommendations to see how tax reforms should be undertaken, as opposed to moving in the wrong direction.
Abbott is trying to match up with Rudd's populist approach, at the expense of integrity.
That is not good for Australia.
Abbott is moving to a dangerous territory here.
It will make the company tax more complex than necessary and will be inefficient.
He will benefit from waiting to see what is in the Henry Tax Review recommendations to see how tax reforms should be undertaken, as opposed to moving in the wrong direction.
Abbott is trying to match up with Rudd's populist approach, at the expense of integrity.
That is not good for Australia.
2009-12-03
Abbott's climate change talk nonsensical
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Liberals stick to emission targets by other means”, 3/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/liberals-stick-to-emission-targets-by-other-means/story-e6frg6nf-1225806336561
Mr Abbott is acting like talking nonsense.
Of course he has no choice but to be hypocritical himself now.
He can't support an either ETS or carbon tax, because that what the opposition or coalition has just killed or argue against.
He can't afford to be seen as a climate change denier, because that will make himself a fool in the electorate.
So his only choice at the moment is talking nonsense, if he cannot say definitely on how much electricity will come from nuclear power and renewable and what their costs will be and how they will be met with no tax or government subsidies.
He tried not to be looking like a fool, but his acts may betray him and portrait him as one, one day, nevertheless.
It will be interesting to see how and when he will have to change his nonsensical talking about his policy on climate change and emissions reduction.
He will fall down to earth very hard at that time for acting emotionally rather than rationally.
Mr Abbott is acting like talking nonsense.
Of course he has no choice but to be hypocritical himself now.
He can't support an either ETS or carbon tax, because that what the opposition or coalition has just killed or argue against.
He can't afford to be seen as a climate change denier, because that will make himself a fool in the electorate.
So his only choice at the moment is talking nonsense, if he cannot say definitely on how much electricity will come from nuclear power and renewable and what their costs will be and how they will be met with no tax or government subsidies.
He tried not to be looking like a fool, but his acts may betray him and portrait him as one, one day, nevertheless.
It will be interesting to see how and when he will have to change his nonsensical talking about his policy on climate change and emissions reduction.
He will fall down to earth very hard at that time for acting emotionally rather than rationally.
Interesting Sheridan on Abbott, climate change and US centrality
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Tony Abbott's rise starts a great political battle”, 3/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tony-abbotts-rise-starts-a-great-politcal-battle/story-e6frg76f-1225806318042
Mr Sheridan, you seem always to dislike many developing countries in general and China in particular.
Your have said “Elements of the Copenhagen model seem to me unlikely to be implemented. It calls for billions of dollars to be given, beyond the normal aid budget, from developed countries to developing countries to finance green energy.
China insists it is a developing country. China also has international reserves of more than $US1 trillion ($1.08 trillion). Just imagine President Barack Obama, or any US politician, standing up in congress to argue that unemployed auto workers in Detroit should receive lower benefits so the US can give billions of dollars in extra aid to China.”
How can you assume that China has called money to be given to it for it to take actions in combating climate change, given that China has announced it would reduce its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020 from its 2005 level?
Just compare this with China’s pledge with your argument that “There is no particular benefit to Australia from moving early on an ETS. Many greenhouse moves are open to us that don't involve an ETS. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time we don't want to impose costs to our economy beyond those that similar economies, such as the US, will bear. To do that would be highly counter-productive.”
Don’t forget that China is a developing country and Australia is a developed country, and further Australia has the highest per capita emissions on earth.
So who is the selfish and slef-interested one?
Distorted minds generate distorted arguments. That is what happens with your point of view on this issue; that I hate but have to say that, unfortunately.
Further, you argue that “He is sometimes too sentimental about Britain, but as a political hardhead and natural national security hawk, he understands very deeply the centrality of the US to the global system, such as it is.”
I am afraid it is a highly laughable view to have now, given the rapidity of the changes in world balances. How long will that centrality be able to last, Mr Sheridan?
Some people will have the wrong view that the sun revolves around the earth until they die and take that view with them to their resting places.
There is no slightest difference here.
Mr Sheridan, you seem always to dislike many developing countries in general and China in particular.
Your have said “Elements of the Copenhagen model seem to me unlikely to be implemented. It calls for billions of dollars to be given, beyond the normal aid budget, from developed countries to developing countries to finance green energy.
China insists it is a developing country. China also has international reserves of more than $US1 trillion ($1.08 trillion). Just imagine President Barack Obama, or any US politician, standing up in congress to argue that unemployed auto workers in Detroit should receive lower benefits so the US can give billions of dollars in extra aid to China.”
How can you assume that China has called money to be given to it for it to take actions in combating climate change, given that China has announced it would reduce its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020 from its 2005 level?
Just compare this with China’s pledge with your argument that “There is no particular benefit to Australia from moving early on an ETS. Many greenhouse moves are open to us that don't involve an ETS. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time we don't want to impose costs to our economy beyond those that similar economies, such as the US, will bear. To do that would be highly counter-productive.”
Don’t forget that China is a developing country and Australia is a developed country, and further Australia has the highest per capita emissions on earth.
So who is the selfish and slef-interested one?
Distorted minds generate distorted arguments. That is what happens with your point of view on this issue; that I hate but have to say that, unfortunately.
Further, you argue that “He is sometimes too sentimental about Britain, but as a political hardhead and natural national security hawk, he understands very deeply the centrality of the US to the global system, such as it is.”
I am afraid it is a highly laughable view to have now, given the rapidity of the changes in world balances. How long will that centrality be able to last, Mr Sheridan?
Some people will have the wrong view that the sun revolves around the earth until they die and take that view with them to their resting places.
There is no slightest difference here.
Effective federal opposition leadership is needed
Comments on Paul Kelly “Liberal party making policy on the run”, 3/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/liberal-party-making-policy-on-the-run/story-e6frg74x-1225806340685
Unexpectedly Mr Tony Abbott was elected the leader of the Liberal Party last week and has become the leader of the opposition that ended the leadership of Mr Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull is a very intelligent guy and was full of promises when he became the leader of the opposition a year ago. But he has made some serious political mistakes and errors in judgment.
Now that is all behind the Liberal Party and it is Mr Abbott's turn to make the opposition electable at the next election in less than a year's time.
I personally wish Mr Abbott every success; because the nation deserves effective opposition at the federal level to hold the government accountable and to be a force to make the government policies better than just the government wishes to be. Only an effective opposition can make it possible that the nation is governed in the best possible way.
However, with all respect to Mr Abbott, I am afraid to say that he is very unlikely to win the next election, simply because his political history and experience does not help him and is detrimental to his success as an opposition leader.
There is also a question that how long his leadership will last. It is also likely that once the liberal party realises the political inevitability, they will seek another more presentable leader to replace him before the next election. It will not be between him and Mr Turnbull, but someone else.
The summer break of the ffederal parliament will not give the opposition the opportunity to think the ETS as the government wishes, but to contemplate seriously its future leadership and the best strategy to win the next election, or at least to minimise the losses if it cannot win it.
Unexpectedly Mr Tony Abbott was elected the leader of the Liberal Party last week and has become the leader of the opposition that ended the leadership of Mr Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull is a very intelligent guy and was full of promises when he became the leader of the opposition a year ago. But he has made some serious political mistakes and errors in judgment.
Now that is all behind the Liberal Party and it is Mr Abbott's turn to make the opposition electable at the next election in less than a year's time.
I personally wish Mr Abbott every success; because the nation deserves effective opposition at the federal level to hold the government accountable and to be a force to make the government policies better than just the government wishes to be. Only an effective opposition can make it possible that the nation is governed in the best possible way.
However, with all respect to Mr Abbott, I am afraid to say that he is very unlikely to win the next election, simply because his political history and experience does not help him and is detrimental to his success as an opposition leader.
There is also a question that how long his leadership will last. It is also likely that once the liberal party realises the political inevitability, they will seek another more presentable leader to replace him before the next election. It will not be between him and Mr Turnbull, but someone else.
The summer break of the ffederal parliament will not give the opposition the opportunity to think the ETS as the government wishes, but to contemplate seriously its future leadership and the best strategy to win the next election, or at least to minimise the losses if it cannot win it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
