Today is a great day not only in Australian history, but also in world history. It marks the day when people of character and sensibility pushed back against an overwrought and pointless green agenda, and pushed back in a big way. They’ve had enough, and they’ve scraped the Krudd off their shoes and are moving forward.
Tony Abbott has won the Australian election in a landslide, and vows to abolish the carbon tax as a first order of business. Abbott has declared Australia is “once more open for business” in claiming victory in Saturday’s election.
It is a huge blow to the Rudd-Gillard labor party and their green goals, which were built on a lie foisted on the Australian people. In 2010 when Gillard said “no carbon tax” in a videotaped speech that has been seen as the key moment Australians lost trust:
Then, shortly after she was elected prime minister, she acted as if those words were never spoken, and implemented a carbon tax anyway. There’s nothing worse than a liar who is oblivious to their own lies, and in my opinion, this was the catalyst that set the stage for the end of labor’s green dream as well as their dominance in government.
Abott says he will abolish the carbon tax. In an August 5th Herald Sun article:
If elected, the coalition on day one would suspend the CEFC (Clean Energy Finance Corporation) and prepare legislation to shut it down permanently. It’s vowed to introduce legislation within a fortnight designed to abolish the carbon tax, and all government climate agencies associated with Labor’s clean energy laws.
From the Herald Sun today:
“Today the people of Australia have declared that the right to govern this country does not belong to Mr Rudd or to me or to his party or to ours but it belongs to you, the people of Australia,” Abbott said.
“And you will punish anyone who takes you for granted.”
Andrew Bolt wrote on his blog: “Finally, a man worthy of the office of Prime Minister – and humble enough to hope it.”
Congratulations to my friends in Australia, the Krudd is kaput and the carbon tax is going away, and almost certainly Flim Flam Flannery too. What a great day!
Cook, Ove, and Sou, this Krudd’s for you!
Meanwhile, back in the USA, the Washington Post seems oblivious to this loud message from down under (h/t to Steve Milloy):
The first thing to do is to build the cost of pollution into the price of energy through a simple carbon tax or other market-based mechanism. Though the tax revenue could be rebated right back to people, higher sticker prices for fossil fuel-derived energy would still give them reason to change behaviors and demand more energy-efficient appliances.
It’s like deju vu all over again, because Australia’s carbon tax was setup just like that, and it was flatly rejected by the people of Australia today. Let’s hope we don’t have to deal with the same madness here in the States.
UPDATE: Australian Eric Worrall writes in a short story submitted to WUWT just moments after this was published says:
Tony Abbott, the man who once described climate change as crap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott#Climate_change , has won a landslide victory in the Australian election, an election which has seen substantial swings against Labor and the Greens.
While we Australians have been disappointed by Abbott’s genuflection towards green dogma, with his promise to replace the hated carbon tax with a watered down form of carbon pricing, we live in hope that it is simply window dressing, to appease greens within his party. Abbott has given us grounds for such hope, with statements to the effect that his budget to mitigate climate change will be capped, regardless of whether the allocated funding achieves its stated goals, and a promise to tighten up the allocation of the national science budget. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/abbott-vows-to-cut-futile-research/story-fni0cx12-1226710934260
Abbott has also spoken out against Tim Flannery http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/jobs-and-junkets-are-on-the-line-abbott-could-axe-flannery-and-the-climate-commission/ , the government doommonger general, who did more than anyone to deliver Australia’s white elephant desalination plants, with his strident support for predictions of permanent drought (end of snow, anybody?).
So its exciting times for climate skeptics down under – and potentially, a global warning for the ambitions of politicians and political parties which are getting too cosy with the greens.
You are mistaken. After all this time It is a sign of naivety that the Modern State totalitarian objectives are not recognized.
Abbot will just take the carbon tax and will replace it with something else. The Modern State totaltarian structure doesn’t allow it to be reduced, bureaucrats and the socialist media enablers will make it impossible to the Abbot Governemnt to survive if he really wants to trash the thing.
They will allow him to replace the thing, rename the thing, but the money must still go to the Modern State.
I know. This has been an ongong situation for nearly all my posts for months. It’s not the spam filter (I have been a moderator myself). Delay has been from an hour to nearly a day while other posts appear below. But I don’t want to have a conversartion about it, just glad my recent posts have been approved (thanks mods).
Back to topic….
Jack says: September 8, 2013 at 6:13 am
The concept of Vegetation Management Plan sounds to me like an idea that is to the left of socialism, beyond national socialism and located somewhere in the communistic region of politics …
(Btw, what happened to the preview function …?)
Patrick,
The Australian is the only national newspaper in the country with the third largest readership and by far the greatest reach. It was a reporter from The Australian that got the quote from the Liberal vice-president from the region, who was there. And Abbott himself acknowledged that he said it, describing his language as hyperbole, mistake, loose language etc. There are multiple sources including from direct interviews on this.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2808321.htm
All of them say he was talking about the science on climate change – as he does – including The Australian report I posted. I’m not aware that he was reported to have been referring to something else (maybe in some two-bit daily?).
He has backed of the statement. This owes more to political realities that personal conviction, I’d say.
“barry says:
September 8, 2013 at 7:57 am”
Nothing independent at the ABC. I hear ya!
“barry says:
September 8, 2013 at 6:54 am
It probably wasn’t a key factor – after all Howard survived backflipping on his pledge to “never ever” introduce a GST and went on to hold power for a record period.”
WRONG! That was 1993! In 1996, Howard and the LNP took the GST to an election. They failed! ~51% of the votes were AGAINST Howard and the LNP and the GST. However, “deals” were done, and we got a GST. Remember, the GST REPLACED other taxes. Was a “carbon tax” taken to an election?
Ken Hall says:
The BBC’s report was the most mealy mouthed, sour-grape filled load of garbage that they could come up with. They cannot believe that a county could vote for a man who is conservative, anti homosexual marriage, and a climate realist. According to the prevailing BBC mentality, such people are a tiny, mentally unstable bunch of extremist nutcases.
Not withstanding the basic truth that you can probably find “extremist nutcases” who hold any viewpoint or political position. (Probably in just about any political group which has ever existed, or is likely to exist.) Human nature being what it is, people are more likely to apply the term “extremist” to viewpoints/people they dislike than to those they like.
Terms such as “conservative” can often cover so much as to be meaningless.
My view, for the last 20 odd years, in the “homosexual marriage” idea is that easiest and simplest way to “equality” would be for the state to cease to recognise any form of “marriage”. Since extending special laws covering hetero-monogamy to also apply to homo-monogamy is still discriminatory. As well as encouraging the idea that monogamy is somehow “best” for everyone.
Also in many cases elections can come down to picking the “least wost” from a ” bad bunch”. Especially where all the candidates are career politicians. I’m not sure if Australian elections allow for a (strong) “None Of The Above”.
I’d wait until October before passing judgment as to if the Australian government is doing anything sensible on the AGW issue.
A politician giving up a source f revenue. Hmmmm
Well Done Australia ! This will send a strong message to political hacks all over the world that the vast majority of people are not in support of carbon taxes and the snake oil salesman attached to them. The Greenie crowd better find something real to scare people about because their source of funding will continue to tank.The Liberal Party in British Columbia remain commited to rip off it’s citizens and screw its economy to appear self rightous .Wake up BC no one is following you over the cliff.
Patrick,
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1185116.htm
It was a remark that was well in the public discourse when the GST introduced, which makes it comparable. Labor made sure everyone was aware of the backflip and the press had a field day with it.
GST had a bigger impact on the CPI than the Carbon Tax, by the way. Not sure where you’re getting your info from. But that’s not really an issue to my mind. Standard of living index was the same during the Howard years as under Labor (2.6% increase per annum). Increases in prices have been off-set by increases in disposable income under both (or should that be all 3?) governments.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/life-is-much-better-under-labor-after-all-says-study-20130830-2sw8l.html
I’m going to wait and see. It’s easy to say you’ll do something but when it comes time to vote and make it actually happen . . . well we’ve seen what can happen here in the States.
SasjaL,
My apologies, I did not know of your limitations. Sometimes I assume too much…
I am convinced that Abbott will call a double dissolution if he has to.It may not come to that,Labor politicians may come to their senses,If not,it will be they who will be blamed for the expense and waste of time of a double dissolution,Not Abbott.They are acting delusional still,so they may force us to the polls again,
Mr Abbott said he would be respectful and courteous towards all who managed to gain a seat.
“But in the end, I think they all need to respect the government of our nation has a mandate and the parliament should work with the government of the day to implement its mandate,” he told radio 2UE.
“I know it’s a two-way street and respect has got to be earned, rather than merely demanded, but nevertheless, the people voted for change and change they will get. I am determined to ensure the parliament will give them the change they want.”
Well done Tony and Barnaby Joyce for New England. (Who ran a mate in solar panels against him, and I scrutineered and the Greens and his supporters generally supported labor) Waiting to see if Clive Palmer wins Fairfax. I think he will not vote to retain carbon tax. But he certainly will make parliament more lively. So long as he doesn’t turn it to ‘Clive Palmer Hour’.
Clive Palmer got in by 300 preference votes, but he was the only one of PUP (Palmer United Party) to get into the lower house, but two look to get Senate seats. The amount of millions he has spent on advertising no doubt helped and the promise to increase pensions by $150 per week,. People will believe anything.
Yes, he will probably make politics more interesting and less desultory. We also have a member who thinks asylum seekers cause traffic jams. Labor is out in the wilderness. Hopefully we’ll se a change for the better, even if a bit of nuttinness ensues.
It’s very unlikely that a double dissolution would be constitutional until early 2015. A lot can happen in that time. Labor may well feel vengeful against the obstructionism of the Coalition and their negative campaigning of the past 3 years. If Coalition popularity goes Southward over the next 15 months, it would probably be in Labor’s interests to encourage a double dissolution, with a fair chance that the Coalition would lose seats, replaced by more independents. Abbott has to cement public trust over 2014, or calling a double dissolution would be a high-risk adventure. Gillard and Rudd are gone, so Labor now has the opportunity to reinvent itself – and it won’t be easy. My call is that a DD will depend on Coalition political fortunes. Labor may cave to repealing the CT if the Coalition goes strong. But I will credit Abbott with integrity if he calls it in the face of waning popularity. This, too, will be interesting to watch.
It’s been entertaining reading the “analysis” in the Fairfax press, the ABC and similar propaganda outlets. Most of them blame party disunity for the defeat, and there is no doubt that it damaged them. But not a single one mentioned the sleaze factor (eg the Peter Slipper episode), the cuddling up to the Greens, concern about rising debt, border protection or indeed any substantive policy issue, let alone all the flip-flops, as relevant.
If this is what they really think, Tony Abbott has not got much to fear from the Opposition in the forseeable future.
“If this is what they really think, Tony Abbott has not got much to fear from the Opposition in the forseeable future.”
Not so sure about that johanna. The thing is, of those left in the parliamentary Labor party there wouldn’t be enough talent to change a light bulb. The propagandists are dying from lack of audience and the ABC is now paid for by the Abbott government.
Tony Abbott has exactly the right policies; that is why he was voted in, Labor had the wrong policies, that is why they were voted out.
NO to the; Carbon tax, the useless department of climate change, the $10 billion clean energy fund, many environmental bureaucracies, job-strangling red tape, job-destroying green tape, the mining tax, 12,000 useless public servants, the very expensive NBN, massive BER waste, bad parts of the fair work legislation, severe media control, fringe benefits destruction, sudden changes in policy, lack of consultation, poor policy planning, poor policy implementation, thought bubbles, back-stabbing the Prime Minister.
Sweeping away all this Labor/Green ideological nonsense will lift such a massive burden off the Australian people and business. The economy will get much, much stronger and benefit everyone.
NO to all these economy-destroying socialist policies means YES to jobs, YES to growth, YES to business, YES to investment, YES to affluence, YES to surplusses, YES to having the means to help people in need.
Tony Abbott has exactly the right policies; that is why he was voted in, Labor had the wrong policies, that is why they were voted out.
NO to the; Carbon tax, the useless department of climate change, the $10 billion clean energy fund, many environmental bureaucracies, job-strangling red tape, job-destroying green tape, the mining tax, 12,000 useless public servants, the very expensive NBN, massive BER waste, bad parts of the fair work legislation, severe media control, fringe benefits destruction, sudden changes in policy, lack of consultation, poor policy planning, poor policy implementation, thought bubbles, back-stabbing.
Sweeping away all this Labor/Green ideological nonsense will lift such a massive burden off the Australian people and business. The economy will get much, much stronger and benefit everyone.
NO to all these economy-destroying socialist policies means YES to jobs, YES to growth, YES to business, YES to investment, YES to affluence, YES to surplusses, YES to having the means to help people in need.
barry says: “We also have a member who thinks asylum seekers cause traffic jams.”
Myth making there, Barry. The Member took the issue of the increasing population including the high influx of resettled refuges in her electorate, which was discussed in the full interview, to highlight the congestion on her local roads and her plans to build more roads. It was a logical link, one that inner city elitists do not comprehend
She was not suggesting what you and probably the propagandists that influence you, infer.
There are polls that asked people to nominate the issues that concern them when going to the polls. Jobs and the economy topped the lists. I am sure that the ‘sleazy’ items had impact, but thes didn’t feature in issues nominated by the public. I’d say that the leadership battles were primary, but that other issues, including some of those you mention (not Slipper – the public is not surprised by this sort of behaviour on either side of the aisle) filled in the background of a widespread malaise with Labor of the voting public.
Also, the public is fickle. Kevin Rudd’s reinstatement saw Labor’s primary vote soar by 8 or 9 points to come within striming distance of winning the lection. Whether it was relief at Gillard’s ouster, or affection for the Dentist, the point is that swinging voters can turn on a dime and that’s what they did. They don’t hold grudges. Not so for Labor/Liberal faithful.
More than anything else, Rudd screwed his campaign and lost the bounce with many ill-advised policy blunders and messaging under a hastily-cobbled, unruly campaign team. The Coalition had a well-oiled team that had been together for some years. They were primed and ready and did a great job at outmanouvering and outshining Rudd’s clunky junket. He deserved to lose.
dbstealey says: September 8, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Normally I wouldn’t bother to respond, but unfortunately you missed my point! You noted my specific problems but missed the general stuff, which can happen to anyone. It doesn’t require a “limitation” to make a typo … (by the way you commented, it is possible to consider it as a discrimination …) The person who’s flawless, isn’t born yet (although some generally think they are …)
What has this discussion got to do with inner-city elitists?
The Member claimed 50 000 asylum seekers had arrived, and that it was a hot topic in her electorate because thet contribute to traffic jams on the M4. Less than 40,000 people arrived by boat since the Labor party took power, of which 18,000 have been granted refugee status in the whole country since 2007. It is unlikely that her district hosts more than a few hundred refugees, if that. Nor is it clear how many own cars or drive on the M4.
There are no hard figures behind her remarks, just opinionising, and greatly exaggerated numbers. The remark was hyperbole and silly, (traffic jams? what about jobs and economy?) and doesn’t deserve more than a bit of a laugh. But it could play well for people who think the main source of illegal immiggration is is boat people, when the far greater number of illegal immigrants arrive by plane and most stay (20 000 have been here more than a decade). I wonder why the current 58 000 illegal plane arrivals aren’t a political football.