[Swagman]

I hope you’re not that naive, and realise that this cuts both ways. LNP are about power at all costs without integrity. Recent evidence is Abbots ‘BHP did this despite the fact I haven’t read why the reason why BHP did it’. There is no integrity in the LNP either

I hope that you're not naive to think that I don't realise that...

Abbott is using the carbon tax in a similar manner to the way Keating used the GST (and Rudd used Workchoices). Maybe Abbott can use the same Keating "sweetest victory of all" speech when the next poll is done and dusted....That's just the politics of it all.

Questionable. Given the hysteria about the GST in the previous election campaign, it probably was necessary for Howard to mention the GST (or lack thereof) in the 1996 campaign

Just my view on the matter. Basically the GST issue gave Keating an extra term & obviously Howard must have thought that he needed to kill it otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it......same goes for Julia and the CT.

Exactly. People are very quick to criticise and yet forget when their party did something similar. It’s always happened, will always happen.

Politics. Pick an unpopular issue and harp on it.

The GST was and still is unpopular with the majority that pay the minority of tax. That was why it only just scraped into being in a watered down version. Personally I look back at the "Fightback" version and see a massive missed opportunity as I said before. I still propose that it should be increased and all exemptions removed.

Both the GST & CT are jointly unpopular because they are regressive in nature. The down trodden pay the GST directly but with the CT (despite GTG trying to say that it's only the poluters that pay) is alot more stealthy (and more and more as time goes on) its bite will be hidden in amongst the cost of living.

So now there will be increased wages demands all over the shop because the CT has increased the cost of living and industry can't afford them because it has also increased their cost base with no bottom end gain.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Just my view on the matter. Basically the GST issue gave Keating an extra term & obviously Howard must have thought that he needed to kill it otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it......same goes for Julia and the CT.

I don’t think the Howard GST and Gillard Carbon tax a similar in that circumstance. Gillard didn’t need to kill the Carbon tax, as the her party didn’t lose the last election based on that policy platform, it won it.

[GandalfTheGrey]

with the CT (despite GTG trying to say that it's only the poluters that pay) is alot more stealthy (and more and more as time goes on) its bite will be hidden in amongst the cost of living.

as "time goes on" there will be no more carbon tax - as after 5 years it will be transformed into a market based carbon trading scheme.

Also, the moment that some bright muffin in the energy industry comes up with a non-polluting energy product will be the moment the "downtrodden" will no longer have to pay the carbon tax. Thats basically the whole point behind the tax - its called incentives, and its good economics.

[Swagman]

Just my view on the matter. Basically the GST issue gave Keating an extra term & obviously Howard must have thought that he needed to kill it otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it......same goes for Julia and the CT.

I don’t think the Howard GST and Gillard Carbon tax a similar in that circumstance. Gillard didn’t need to kill the Carbon tax, as the her party didn’t lose the last election based on that policy platform, it won it.

So what's your call on why she said there'd be no CT?

[GandalfTheGrey]

^ same reason she decided to compromise on the mining tax - she wanted to get it behind her once and for all and move on.

It wasn't because it was popular - the public supported the government's original position on both issues. As usual Gillard was spooked by big business and pandered to them accordingly.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

So what's your call on why she said there'd be no CT?

Because she is a crap Prime Minister who got spooked out of supporting established policy.

[Swagman]

.......and not blackmailed by Bob Brown?

[Notorious B.i.G.]

No.
This argument that the greens are the puppet master of the ALP and that Bob Brown has some sort of hold over Gillard is just pure grade A bullcrap.
A droll argument rolled out by people who don’t actually understand any of the inner workings of the ALP.

[GandalfTheGrey]

^ the argument is absurd when you stop and think for about half a second and realise that the Greens can't actually threaten labor with anything. What are they going to do - support Tony Abbott instead? Ridiculous.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

^That too.
I could see Greens supporting a small l liberal if they were to lead the LNP and the LNP tried to outflank ALP on post-materialist issues. But that will never happen under Abbott.
We've seen how the Greens cannot blackmail the ALP, evidenced with respect to onshore processing. The ALP would rather shoot itself in the foot than work with Greens on that issue.

[GandalfTheGrey]

^ onshore processing was the clincher. Labor basically pointed out to the Greens that its less skin off their nose siding with the coalition than it is to bow to the Greens demands.

[Swagman]

^ the argument is absurd when you stop and think for about half a second and realise that the Greens can't actually threaten labor with anything. What are they going to do - support Tony Abbott instead? Ridiculous.

It was a hung parliament. The Greens were kingmakers. "Impose a CT or else".

[Notorious B.i.G.]

It was a hung parliament. The Greens were kingmakers. "Impose a CT or else".

That Greens didn't get onshore processing proves that they do not have that hold over the ALP. That would have been the same case with the Carbon Tax. The Greens supported the formation of an ALP Government with the ALP still staying they will not introduce a Carbon Tax. That came well after government was formed.
And if, just if there was some kind of super secret pinkie swear pact with the Greens, the ALP would still be in Government without Bandts support in the lower house
Because it is in your head, doesn't make it true.

[GandalfTheGrey]

It was a hung parliament. The Greens were kingmakers. "Impose a CT or else".

or else what? The Greens had no cards to play since everyone knows they are obviously not going to support Tony Abbott.

The independents on the other hand.. they are the real kingmakers, but even most of those are in a similar position - Andrew Wilkie can't destroy labor if he has any chance of anything happening on pokies, Windsor and Oakshott are ex-national and are basically in an open war with the nationals.

[Salohcin]

The greens were king makers. But I think Gillard underestimated the political cost of implementing the carbon tax. I think in her mind it was a case of implementing a similar policy on the way to the policy she really wanted.

However because she chose to explicitly say she wouldn't implement a carbon tax she will pay in votes at the next election.

I think Abbott has overplayed his hand slightly however on the carbon tax and exaggerated too much, and as a result is losing credibility. I also think Malcolm Turbull has started white anting Tony. Speeches (like this one on political credibility; worth the read) make me think that Turbull is positioning himself for a leadership challenge in the not too distant future.