Tim Watts has posted at Tree of Knowledge on Andrew Bolt’s claim that the forces of the hardline right in the Liberal Party are planning to monster Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt and push for an oppositional stance to the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. Brendan Nelson’s latest confused comments about delaying the ETS might be some confirmation of this, but on the other hand Nelson’s line on climate change is a moveable feast at the best of times, and Turnbull was singing from the same song sheet today. Watts is no doubt right that such a stance would be political stupidity on the part of the opposition, but it’s just as likely that the story represents wishful thinking on Bolt’s part, obsessed as he is with climate change denialism. However, nutty calls from the Nats for a Royal Commission to examine the science certainly do highlight the continuing divisions within the Coalition.
It is possible that the Libs might be attempting to force Rudd to negotiate with the Greens, in the belief that this would lead to “extreme” legislation which would give them a chance to attack Labor from the putative centre. That might be giving them too much credit for actually having a political strategy, and it would be a very high risk strategy, because they could easily be painted as mired in denialism and do-nothingism.
Update: Via Tree of Knowledge, it’s on, it seems - with Kevin Andrews flying the denialist banner and arguing for do-nothingism.
Update: Latest developments discussed in this new post.
Tend to agree with Tim watts that Bolt’s claim of control from the forces of the Howard right has more to do with Bolt’s sources than his obsessional climate change denialism (which day by day appears to be very very delusional). Hope so. The gods haven’t finished punishing the Libs for their hubris yet. After all, those the gods intend to destroy they first drive mad.
(Look at Bolt.)
It is far from lunacy. It is a desire to win votes. The ALP haven’t yet realised just what their current direction is going to cost them. Some of the saner heads on the front bench are keeping below the radar, in an attempt to retain credibility with their voters.
Speaking of liberal lunacy:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/23/2312389.htm
Alcopops have forced up inflation!
Is there anything underpinning Liberal “policy”, positions, pronouncements, positioning - machinations & leadership shadowplay - except politics, and attempts to wrong-foot the ALP?
Is there any real reason for digging in stubbornly re ETS, except that their 2007 policy was “in 2012″? Some theory? Some research into the comparative advantages of 2012 over 2010? Do they have any alternative “green paper”? Are they working on one? Is pig-headedness a policy?
Or are they following state opposition parties’ “spoiler” role, rather than “policy alternatives” role? Leadership wars instead of policy leadership - has Nelson managed to articulate a well-developed, consistent & fully supported new policy (the 5c or whatever was whose policy at the time sum off petrol doesn’t rate)?
What do Liberals currently stand for other than whinging, knocking, beating-up, making up things as they go along - anything negative they can think of that might take off some of the Rudd gloss?
Has this won them an election at state/ territory recently?
Lefty EE, you will have to explain how it is “liberal lunacy” that alcopops rising in price have helped contribute to inflation.
It is neither “liberal” nor “lunacy”. It is plausible. A consumer goodie rises in price (in this case because of a 70% increase in tax) and people keep buying it. Thus consumer spending rises, thus inflation goes up. This is basic economics as learned in high school.
Hmmmm, earth to Steve - try oil prices for a slightly better explanation.
Perchance they are mired in denialism?
.
Would the Greens be silly enough to force a disollution because the ALP’s laws weren’t ‘extreme’ enough?
.
Maybe the Liberals don’t like liberals like Turnball.
Adrian, your last line hits the nail on the head. Right now the Liberals are wondering why the heck they went to all the trouble of installing Turnbull & shafting Peter King, hehe.
If Nelson actually delays an ETS, I suspect Rudd would be politically advantaged. Climate Change is now a moral imperative. It is the dominant narrative.
Nelson’s attempts to create an alternative story is a massive gamble for an opposition leader without access to government resources. For example, the Bomber couldn’t counter the ‘terror’ message.
Then again Nelson doesn’t have too many aces in the pack. In fact he has only one and CC denial is exactly that. Wish him luck.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Climate change will split the Liberal Party for years, just as Europe has split the British Tories.
“Monstering” Turnbull - that’s a good one. As if he, of all people, is going to shut up because Nick Minchin or Bronwyn Bishop say so. There’s about as much chance of that as there is of Bishop winning the next Miss Universe competition. Turbull has spent a lifetime in the certitude that he is correct on everything. He’s not going to change now.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see the Government cut a deal with a maverick Liberal senator or two to get their legislation through. Marise Payne and Russell Trood are ripe for the deal.
steve at the pub wrote:
More like they’ve suddenly forgotten why they needed to. It seems like Howard had kept Minchin on somewhat of a short leash. Without his handler, he’s a bit of a rabid dog.
The lunatic liberal right are inadvertently reinvigorating Turnbull’s chances. Being opposed to an ETS and appearing to again be in part denial of climate change is a WorkChoices type issue.
There are not too many shades of greys will help them here, the public will go on appearances and it appears the LNP are against doing anything on climate change, which is in total opposition to the polled feeling of the public, including LNP voters.
They will come under increasing public pressure to have a genuine policy on doing something about climate change and, Turnbull will be the one that could naturally tap in to that sentiment. AND never too shy to speak before thinking Turnbull will eventually be out their again making noises that Minchin will hate.
Bolt is starting become like Ackerman in his obsessiveness over a single issue. It may reflect a close association with Minchin and with his tv appearances I wonder if he intends to preselect at the next election.
So the price went up on Alcopops. from what i hear the kids aren’t buying Alcopops anymore. They’re back to what my mob usted to do. Buying a half of spirits and pouring it into half a bottle of Coke, oeange lemon whatever. They have inadvertently discovered on the way it gets them pissed quicker, and I gather, more cheaply.
Which just goes to show legislating on groun ds of morality is doomed to end up being irrelevant, if not out and out failure.
And who, pray tell, is pushing up the rate of inflation by buying all those luxury cars? Malcolm’s mates?
Paul Burns, they are still buying them. Sales of alcopops have been climbing back steadily after the initial drop-off.
Though it is correct kids aren’t buying them, they never did.
Despite the wide variety of “leg-opener” coloured sugary alcopops, the typical purchaser of alcopops is a male aged 25-35, drinking a mix based on a brown spirit.
(more accurately, this demographic purchases alcopops on a scale which dwarfs purchases by girls/kids)
SATP, are you still whining about having to mix a bundy & coke instead of instead of pulling a can out of the fridge?
Middle aged men are the big drinkers of EVERYTHING, not just alcopops. They mostly die early drinking beer, less on the wine, less on the spirits.
The alcopop tax has seen a significant drop in sales of teen styled drinks which were showing up as a considerable factor in underage & binge drinking. Ute Man is just collateral damage.
So, who to trust in this debate? D&A researchers & doctors or spirit distillers, publicans and the Fibs.
instead of instead of.
Jo, are you off your rocker? naturally got a chip on your shoulder, or imbibing a shade too heavily?
Please copy & paste where I have ever mentioned mixing bundy & coke, never mind “whingeing” about it.
There was an initial drop heavy drop in those style of drinks, there is now a recovery in consumption. However there remains a drop, made up by sales of neat spirits. Paul Burns is on the money.
The kids are now bingeing on neat spirits. This has resulted in 2 stomach pumpings in my town (to save a life) from drinking a bottle of neat spirts, something which hasn’t occurred since before the alcopops were given a tax break at GST introduction time.
Believe who you like, but the most accurate and comprehensive research on spirit consumption in Australia is Diageo, the world’s largest liquor company, (owners of the Bundaberg Rum label). It is always said that if they ever fail as a liquor company they will make it as a research company.
All somewhat OT though!
Update: Via Tree of Knowledge, it’s on, it seems - with Kevin Andrews flying the denialist banner and arguing for do-nothingism.
I love my candyhol but have since cut down.
No one misses it: “‘Heavy’ succeeds again!”
Steve at the Pub,
I wonder if you could tell us what percentage of GDP is ‘alcopops’? I know that it is very small, hence you could have a 500% increase on the price of ‘alcopops’ and that would have a neglible effect on inflation.
Sorry Mark OT!
SATP,
you state @ 14 that kids never bought alcopops, then you state the kids are now bingeing on neat spirits due to the tax hike. Get your industry talking points lined up Steve!
I have no doubt that there will be some increase in risker hand-mixed take-away drinking by teens. The point about displacement is one that health professionals are currently pointing out to the Senate, but the implications for across-the-board volumetric taxes opened up way too many cans or rather casks of worms for an early first budget in newly straightened economic times.
I’m assuming that the alcopop tax was very low hanging fruit: the hugely significant increase in sales in pre-mixed drinks over the past 8 years off a very low tax impost, combined with a female binge drinking spike and a budget windfall was more than irresistible.
But I’m also assuming the alcopop tax increase is just the first direct hit in a long term invigorated alcohol consumption reduction/alcohol harm reduction strategy. Pesky epidemiologists, D&A researchers, health promotions people etc etc. need a new challenge having effectively marginalised smoking over the past four decades.
And my point earlier was that men mostly over 40, are hardest hit by any rise in taxes on any alcohol product. Men over 40 are the biggest group of problem drinkers by a country mile.
Poor old Ute Man has a beer gut and an inflammed liver.
way too tired, should read: Men over 40 also make up the biggest group of problem drinkers by a country mile.
Alaistar, no hard data at my fingertips on the size of the alcopop industry, but if it is any guide it was giving beer a nudge for market share. Your point stands, though the alcopop market isn’t (or perhaps wasn’t) as small as the casual observer may think.
Jo, as carefully as I read your post, I find nowhere do you mention where I have previously “whinged” about mixing drinks. Which was your leading point from your previous post. Have I poured kero on your cat & set it alight or something?
Read my post again for clarity. I put my statement into perspective 2 sentences later. You haven’t cunningly spotted a sloppy blunder, you have actually myopically clean missed a sentence written in plain English.
Firstly, climate change is the dominant narrative at the moment. But if the economy slows, and this occurs at the same time as a Emissions Trading Scheme is introduced, which will cause at least some job losses, then the narrative will change. People need to work to live, and if anything is preventing this, then they will look for something to blame, and government policy is an easy one because it comes with an opportunity for retribution at the ballot box.
There is an entire generation of Australians my age and younger who have never experience a tight job market. They will find it tough, and look to apportion blame.
The Greens are about to enter their GST moment. It’s 1998 for them. Pass the scheme as it is and they face a backlash from their own extreme membership. Play hardball and stay with their ideology, and they will be electorally radioactive. Forcing an Double Dissolution by knocking back a ETS because it doesn’t go far enough will be politically suicidal. They’ll get attacked by both major parties.
As someone who is probably more on Turnbull’s side of the Liberal Party than Nelson, I am conflicted because the more I read the more I doubt carbon caused climate change. I am also completely convinced that we will seriously damage our economy, and therefore the nation, if we stick our proverbials in the wind and act by ourselves, especially before China and India are forced to act.
Oh Howard, you gotta change what you read man. There is no debate anymore, there is climate change, and there are denialists, Sept 11 was an inside job, and smoking is good for you.
It shocks me that people still think whole governments and legions of scientists qualified in the field, and the UN, one of the most empirically based organisations out there have all somehow been hoodwinked into decisions that will cost them in the short term billions of dollars, but Joe Public, mining companies, and scientists who don’t actually know anything about climate change ahve got it all figured out…
The Liberal Party (so-called) is being taken over by cranks and misfits. WorkChoices proponents, Climate Change skeptics, Religious nutcases: the Sliberals have got them all.
I applaud their movement towards the abyss of extremism. May they fall over the edge and land in cloud of distant dust.
Of course, I must be reading the wrong stuff, my mind is closed. I read plenty of stuff, and different scientists are saying different things.
There is debate, because I hear people arguing. I’m not a crackpot. To say that anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy makes mistakes more likely. We need to be considered, because it is, to say the least, important.
I’m not an expert, but I need to be convinced of something happening, not of something not happening. There is reason defendants are innocent until proven guilty - it’s the best way. I need convincing, and I am hearing conflicting arguments and evidence to back up both sides.
Oi! I might be packin a few extra pounds around the trouser area, but it isn’t on me gut.
New post:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/07/24/liberal-lunacy-ii/
I love the way the Lbs are barging around like their still relevant, or in government or something. Except without the discipline imposed by Howard, and actually being in power.
Its an absolute schmozzle - and my favourite part of the pantomime is how 2, and sometimes 3 contradictory positions can be put with equal whining gravitas and outrage “Mr Rudd MUST do x. And y …. and the opposite of x and y! And z!”
David Rubie wrote:
Rx wrote:
These two comments, between them, go to the heart of the matter. Whilst Howard’s own sympathies on most issues lay with positions held by the right of the Liberal Party, he was a shrewd enough judge of the Australian popular mind (which is often instinctively conservative but seldom, if ever, ideologically right wing) to know when to trim his sails on issues where the wind was blowing left, and he had the authority as an electorally successful Prime Minister to bring the right sullenly along with him. Now that he’s gone, a Liberal right which shares all of his prejudices (plus a few of its own) and none of his canny political instincts has slipped its leash.
Howard C @ 24:
Nonsense. The Greens can’t pass or block anything. The Coalition + Fielding has a majority, and Fielding’s views on climate change are hard-core denialist.
FWIW, I’d like to see the Coalition adopt an openly denialist position. I think its inevitable anyway. Both the Libs and Nats are infested with denialists, its really only Turnbull, Hunt and the bleeding hearts (Petro, Judi et al) who genuinely believe in good climate policy.
Well, if Labor negotiate with Fielding and Xenophon before getting the Greens onside, then they have rocks in their head. The ALP can’t pass anything without the Greens, unless the Coalition support them.
If the Coalition really are as purely politically motivated as everyone else on here says they are, then they will force the ALP to seek the Greens’ support.
I can’t see how the Greens duck this one.
I don’t think so. The ETS (as of the latest Green paper) is seriously flawed, with big subsidies to coal power. It needs changing, and the Greens are the ones to apply pressure to change it. In addition, the GST was never that urgent nor that popular, but the latest reports by Hansen show that climate change mitigation is urgently needed. That’s been commented on in LP by Brian and others. Finally, the Democrats lost their demographic to the Greens. To who are the Greens going to lose their demographic?
What would be electorally suicidal is to give in to Labor without a fight.
Howard C: You can’t negotiate with Fielding. God told him AGW is a crock and that’s the end of the matter.
The Greens will pass anything that’s a step in the right direction, however timid.
Howard C,
I disagree with you that the ETS is comparable to the GST for the Democrats. Many Democrat voters were against the GST full-stop. Green voters will be in favour of an ETS. Yes they want a comprehensive ETS, not a diluted one, but are quite aware of how much power the Greens have and will be happy if they support policy that is at least moving in the right direction.
Then the Greens will have problems within their membership.
And if the reasons stated in subsequent posts are correct, then the Government has a mandate to act on climate change. Any moderation of that mandate would be reminiscent of the GST debate in 1999, when the government had won on the GST manifesto.
But as others have commented, it won’t be the Greens who will be calling for moderation of that mandate.
Greens members and supporters (of whom I’m one) can count, and are not likely to nurture any illusions about what can be done by 5 Green Senators in the presence of 71 non-Green ones. The Greens will only have trouble with their membership and/or their constituency if they end up helping to pass a scheme which is so badly designed as to be worse than no ETS at all (and if it’s that bad the odds are that the Coalition will back it and the Greens won’t be needed).
Moderation was probably the wrong word to use. I probably should have used “alteration” or “amendment”.
What if they won’t vote for the scheme because if doesn’t go far enough? Then they will be very unpopular among those who voted 1 ALP.
What if they pass the ETS unchanged, or somewhere between what they want and what the ALP initially offered? Then some of the membership will be unhappy. Let’s face it, some of their membership probably thinks their current policy isn’t going far enough.
And if an ETS scheme is passed, then the Greens will need to support it if the Coalition does not offer its support. If this introduction coincides with an economic downturn, then people who are suffering will look for someone to apportion that blame to, and act accordingly.
I just don’t see how the Greens avoid this one. All the points that have been made by others who don’t agree with me haven’t convinced me.
OT warning = Ute Man’s ejaculation:
“Oi! I might be packin a few extra pounds around the trouser area, but it isn’t on me gut.”
Hats off to a bloke that uses pounds, not bloody keelos. And it’s still “extra inches” with you, is it Mister Ute Man? Sir.
Good to hear yer in fine mettle, cobber.
I still fill me car tyres in pounds per square inch Ambigulous. And me favourite joke is in pounds (how do you make four pounds of fat attractive? put a nipple on it). Dudn’t work with keelos.
“The Liberal Party (so-called) is being taken over by cranks and misfits.”
One problem I think the modern world has to grapple with is the growing inequality between the “knows” and the “know-nots”. I know its a politician job to get good at sorting through info without mastering it, but with human knowledge getting so complex, I imagine that their job is getting increasingly difficult.
Does anyone really think that Kevin Rudd knows much about emissions trading? Or that Penny Wong knows much about the ins and outs of regional and local climate projections and their uncertainties? Peter Garrett?
While it used to be funny, it is now a source of angst for me when yet another politician in an energy or environment portfolio (even the relatively green ones!) attends the launch of some green building and doesn’t seem to have grasped something very simple such as the difference between solar hot water panels and solar power generation panels.
Its also a worry when you find public servants at the most senior levels who refuse to use a computer and still have secretaries typing stuff for them. If you can’t cope with the modern world, maybe you don’t have an agile enough head to be in a position of authority. But it happens.
I am not a sceptic, and i find climate change scepticism and delays very frustrating. But i think its dangerous to just assume that it is only loons who fall for it. I think it is understandable (though not excusable) that even bright people would fall for it, because the world and the information-sphere are that complex.
I think it’s time we took the advice of those intellectual giants contributing to the Bolta’s blog. They are advocating telling the Liberal shadow ministry that they don’t believe in AGW and the Liberal policy should change to denialism.
You know what? I think it’s excellent advice. Can we generate a couple of hundred emails to the shadow ministry like that? Just to see the fireworks?
contacts
You know you want to.
I could rack up a fair few unique i.p. addresses DR. Excellent notion.
Lefty E @3, I know we Aussies like a drink, but who woulda thunk that alcopops would be the cause of rampant inflation?
Thats right Jane, its the alcopops shock, the alcopops crash, the alcopop recession we had to have, the alcopocaplypse!!!
Na! It’s the rent.