Home » Posts tagged 'Greg Combet'
Tag Archives: Greg Combet
Advocates here insist that the Gillard scheme will be a valuable tool in the fight against the scourge of Anthropogenic Global Warming I have never been convinced that it will do anything that its advocates claim and I have repeatedly suggested that its little more than a scam. This post has but one purpose and that is to point out the folly of “emission trading schemes” and to show just how easily they become little more than a shambolic fraud. One only has top look to the European scheme to see what we can expect from the one created by the Gillard government:
Of course my quote above does not tell the whole story but it is a good example of how these schemes rely upon what can only be described as “clever accounting” to create the pretence of efficacy. To be honest I can see how such an indirect method to change industrial behaviour can ever truly work because it is all based upon the “bigger idiot principal”* and just as that sees the collapse of ponzi schemes it is seeing the collapse of the European emissions trading scheme as well:
Its a far from pretty picture in Europe and the only light in the antipodean climate darkness is that the Coalition have promised to repeal the idiotic regime created to placate the loopy Greens by a desperate Julia Gillard. Now if only the incoming Abbott government would have the courage to also ditch the majority of their own pointless scheme the country would be truly free of the AGW madness .
*the bigger idiot principle is essential in all kinds of derivative trading schemes it is the underlying belief that any commodity can be sold at a profit if only enough people can be convinced to buy into the scheme. It is fine until the supply of idiots runs out.
- Politicians reject call for early shift to emissions trading (abc.net.au)
- EU urged to revive flagging emissions trading scheme (guardian.co.uk)
- Opposition rules out emissions scheme (news.com.au)
- The EU Emissions Trading Scheme under WTO Rules (worldtradelaw.typepad.com)
- What Gillard is up against (theaimn.com)
- Without dignity all is lost for Labor (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- How does Julia sleep? (spectator.co.uk)
- Carbon fat cats are killing the emissions trading mouse | Damian Carrington (guardian.co.uk)
Who you gonna vote for? It’s a fair question given that Our Dear Leader has already set the election date an astounding seven months hence. No doubt rusted-ons on both sides have already decided. However, swinging voters now have some time to make up their minds.
Admittedly, Labor, after five years, has made a few stuff-ups. That’s if you redefine ‘few’ to mean ‘everything’. As the Macquarie Dictionary has already redefined ‘misogyny’ to mean whatever Ms Gillard wants, I’m sure this won’t be a problem.
Iain’s previous post detailed a litany of errors, foul-ups and corruption, but he left one piece of proposed legislation off the list. Perhaps he was being generous.
That proposed legislation? It’s that abhorrent submission by soon to retire, nascent and now failed, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon. It’s her stalled, though by no means halted, odious ‘anti-discrimination bill’.
Until the chairman of the ABC, and former judge, Jim Spigelman and former High Court judge Ian Callinan, and various religious groups and almost all of the media objected, Roxon was adamant that her bill was worthy.
Unfortunately, her noxious bill has not been defeated. As Janet Albrechsten explains:
Roxon’s assault on free speech has not been completely defeated. There is, for example, still the matter of the bill making a mockery of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof
What is it with Labor wanting to control our behaviour? Especially when they are younger than half the population and have never held a job outside of politics or the union hierarchy. What gives them the right to determine or define our moral code?
Now that Roxon has admitted over-stepping the mark, can we look forward to Greg Combet admitting that the carbon tax is based on a scam? Or Stephen Conroy, of the ‘crying Conroys’ admitting that his ‘back of an envelope’ vision of an NBN is not only unnecessary, but financially out of control and way behind schedule?
However, it is good to see that Labor’s PR department are working as hard as ever:
So who you gonna vote for?
Found this plaintiff wail in my in box and thought I’d share it with the Sandpit’s readers:
Pardon me while I take the time to enjoy the fact that the Greens are now having to learn to live in a political reality where their loopy ideas are actually measured against the feather of political truth rather than the far less stringent standards of coffee shop idealism.
The ALP want to know what its “members and supporters” think about it and to that end they are running a survey:
Of course as I get their email I did the survey….
Its rather apt that no matter how much cash the Gillard government throw around the polls remain in the wipe out zone. Any other government would be reconsidering their entire political agenda but we are not talking about any other government we are talking about the Gillard Labor Government who are the masters of only one thing, the self inflicted wedgie.
Hmm did anyone really expect that the cash splash of pre-emptive compensation for the despised Carbon tax would give the Gillard any bounce? Frankly it can’t be doing them any good if they have made the Carbon Tax into the contemporary equivalent of buggery in the age of Mr Wilde, “its the tax that dare not speak its name” if the Government ads are anything to go by. I’m sure that the advertising spin merchants who pitched the latest campaign had the right idea to down play the connection between the cash splash and the carbon tax but the way that they refuse to mention it at all just ads to the public perception that Gillard is a sneaky and deceptive political operator. That is of course the very last thing that she needs if she hopes to even improve Labor’s chances from dire to just very bad. Are there no wise heads in this government that are willing to point out the last thing the voters will tolerate is bullshit on an issue that is the very reason that Labor is despised?
- Abbott won’t repeal carbon tax: Gillard
- Carbon Cops: Educate or Else
- The Gillard government’s deliberately deceptive advertising
- Gillard steps up carbon price defence
- Julia Gillard’s $700m carbon tax sweetener
- When’s a good time to introduce a great big new tax?
- Firms that Mislead Customers on Carbon Tax Face Up to $1.1 Million Fine
- Australia Government’s ‘Cash Splash’ Aimed At Calming Carbon-Tax Fears
- Carbon Tax Worries Australian Businesses
- Team Abbott and Prophecies of Doom
- Ask not for whom the bell tolls Julia, it tolls for thee
- Sould Bill Shorten be on suicide watch?
Just a quick thought on one way that Gillard can keep the keys to the lodge a bit longer and stave off her removal from the leadership of the Labor party and that is for her to tell her party that if they repalce her as leader then she will quit politics altogether, precipitate a by election and by necessity destroy Labor’s wafer thin majority….
Just a quick thought for those who are wetting themselves with the thought of Brother Number One making a comeback or any other Labor faces making a grab for the poisoned chalice of minority government at the behest of the Greens and independants…
There are certainly times when you get something and it turns out to be rather more toxic than you thought it would be as I am sure the Labor MPs have been discovering of late.
This morning they will be beginning a new week with the knowledge that they are even more on the nose with the electorate than they were before. They may try to take comfort from the continuing popularity of Malcolm Turnbull but that is very small beer indeed compared to the disarray that Labor finds itself in at present. With the Carbon tax top of the list of things people hate about Labor a sensible PM would just admit that it ain’t going to fly with the people and drop the bloody thing calling the bluff of the independents and the loopy Greens because it just has to be better for brand Labor to demonstrate that it still has its balls rather than continue dancing to their tune just to stay in the lodge.
Lets face it The Greens and Andrew Wilkie have to realise that if they bring down Gillard that their influence of government will be over and they will not get any opportunity to influence government for a very long time indeed, they will have killed the Labor party stone dead by insisting that they introduce a Carbon tax. Speaking of which has anybody noticed that Poor old Greg Combet is looking rather haggard of late? He has been given the task of selling the detested Carbon Tax and his funereal demeanour says it all, he is like a bacon seller in a mosque, and he knows it.
The one bright spot for the government is that the idea of limiting the amount of money that gamblers can throw down the ever hungry maw of poker machines is overwhelmingly popular, heck even I think that the Pokies are evil and I am proud to say that I have never wasted a single cent playing those vile machines, That said I wonder if the Wilkie scheme will actually achieve its aim and think that there is merit in the suggestion that there be some real world testing (as suggested on the Insiders ) in a few towns to see if the technology works and it has any impact on the way that people use the machines. Sadly the truly problem gamblers, like any addict, will find a way to gamble no matter what barriers are put in place to discourage them. Personally I think a far better solution to problem gamblers is to create disincentives for the owners of the machines who so love the poor deluded gambling fools. Things like making the recovery of money stolen and gambled away easier (or even just possible ) would be a very good start. How many times have we read about people who steal to sustain a gambling habit? Just why gambling venues can not be made to return stolen money has always perplexed me. After-all any other sort of stolen property can be recovered and its recipients charged with receiving stolen goods so why can’t that be the case when a gambler steals to gamble? The result would have to be club owners being more vigilant for those who are obviously betting beyond their means and creating a sort of self regulation. Wilkie may be acting from the best intentions here but I just don’t think that his solution will do that much about what is a terrible problem.