Diluted Sovereignty: A Very Australian Example

Australian concepts of sovereignty have always been qualified. First came the British…

The bottom feeders

There are a number of species in the animal world that survive…

National Museum of Australia launches environmental sustainability action…

National Museum of Australia Media Release The National Museum of Australia has launched…

Ticketing Woes: The Patchy Record of Myki

What is it about government contracts that produces the worst results and…

The rebirth of Donald Trump has biblical overtones.…

Who else but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be game enough to…

Ben Roberts-Smith: The Breaking of a Plaster Saint

It was an ugly case lasting five years with a host of…

The Strange Case Of PWC Or Where's Sherlock…

Someone has assured me today that Price, Waterhouse, Cooper did not change…

Australia's Humanitarian Visa System is Inhumane: An Open…

By Loz Lawrey Dear Minister Giles, Since my previous emails to you of 14…


A penny saved is a penny earned

A penny saved is a penny earned – or so goes the truism. While this may apply to individuals and private enterprises; does it apply to governments?

Guest blogger Peter Martin investigates.

Readers please note; Peter Martin has no connection with Peter Martin of Fairfax Press.

Homo sapiens, the scientific name of our species, literally means ‘thinking man’. Nearly all of us do think, at least some of the time! However, not all of our thoughts turn out to be correct.

We all have bad ideas from time to time. The scientific method is intended as a check on our thoughts, beliefs and theories, against reality, and so allows the modification of them accordingly. We can then separate out those beliefs which might be classified as rational and those which might be somewhat irrational.

So, what is the thinking behind the theory of economic austerity, on a macroeconomic level? We all tend to the notion that if we are sick or out of condition, the cure may involve some unpleasantness. For instance, if we’ve put on too much weight we might have to lay off the cakes, and exercise more for a time until we are back to normal. But, does this line of thinking apply to national economies too?

If inflation is allowed to become too high, and government, companies and individuals are making economic demands which are impossible to meet, because the required resources are unavailable in the real economy, there might well be a need to slow things down.

When that happens, there is bound to be some personal suffering. Jobs will be lost, some incomes will fall. Governments have to make a judgement call, according to what they would consider to be the greater good.

There is plenty of real world evidence that inflation can sometimes get out of hand, and that it can be controlled by deflationary policies.

Slowing down an overheating economy, however, cannot be classed as austerity economics.

That is not at all the same thing.

What if we have the opposite problem, as we are now seeing in Euroland? Is there any scientific and observational evidence at all that programs of economic austerity as imposed on the economies of Spain, Greece, Italy and others, will achieve their stated aims of achieving economic growth, economic stability and the reduction of unemployment?

There is not.

The factual evidence is all to the contrary. Fiscal austerity fails to achieve its aims. Unless those who advocate these policies can provide such evidence, we can only conclude that their thought processes are irrational and their approach is unscientific.

So, what might be a more rational approach? We might start by recognising that spending has to equal income. If the Troika ( the EU commission, the ECB, and the IMF) insist on a reduction of Greek or Spanish spending then Greek and Spanish incomes will fall and their economies will contract. We can see that in the theory and the practical evidence too.

I don’t know why any rational person has a problem seeing that.

Perhaps, many of us are so caught up in the thought that saving must be a good thing that we sometimes miss it. Saving is what the virtuous do.

Spending, on the other hand, must be a bad thing. That is what the reckless do. Except, of course, if the spending can be classed as “investment”.

Then it might be classed as a good thing too!

Income, naturally, is a good thing. At least we all agree on that. Everyone needs some income to survive. It should be a self-evident ‘truism’ that everyone, everywhere, who has earned any money has done so only because someone else has made a decision to spend some money.

If people are not earning enough, it must follow this is because other people are not spending enough. Spending may be “investing” in new infrastructure or, equally, it may be simply you or I just going down to the pub and buying a pint or two!

Of course, if anyone wants to put aside some of their hard earned money then there is no reason why they should not. But, as a simple matter of accountancy, it needs to be recognised by all, that if someone is spending less than they earn someone else has to spend more, otherwise our economy will shrink.

The foreign sector in the UK spends less than it earns.

Overseas buyers spend less on buying products from the UK – our exports – than sellers earn from sales of products to the UK – our imports.

That needs to be made up for.

Many baby-boomers are nearing retirement. They are spending less than they earn, as they put aside money into their pension funds. More generally, the private domestic sector needs to net save to clear past debts and avoid new ones.

That needs to be compensated for too. That has to be down to Government. There is no one else. It needs to spend more than it earns, ie run a deficit, to “balance the books”.

It is all so simple, and so obvious, but many of us are just so conditioned to be the way we are, that we can be blind to what should be apparent to an intelligent five year old, and mess up our economies as a consequence of indulging in irrational thought.

Even though this may be considered to be a more rational approach, there is still a need to provide factual evidence to support the argument. Where this strategy has been employed in recent times, primarily in the USA but to a lesser extent in the UK, there has been a better recovery at a macroeconomic level.

When the world was in depression in the 30s, the recovery was much better in countries which employed expansionary economic policies than in those that didn’t. If there is one real-world lesson that can be learned from Germany, it is that it is quite possible to move from 30% unemployment to full employment in a timescale of less than six years.

We might not approve of how it was done, or how unused economic resources were put to use, but the hard evidence is there in the historical record, between 1933 and 1939, that it was done. There is no denying that!

Of course, the challenge is not to solve our economic problems by putting our economies on a war footing. No sensible person wants another war.

The challenge is to achieve the same result by utilising our unused resources for peaceful purposes. The evidence is that it can be done, but only by throwing out irrational thoughts which lead to irrational economic policies!


Login here Register here
  1. Bighead1883

    Basically Peter Martin you`re calling for default and trading outside the current fiscal constraints with your final paragraph.
    Austerity politics is not brought onto us by governments but by Bankers who force/coerce/bribe/demand.
    Here the LNP is doing what the Investment Bankers want,starve the system financially-create massive unemployment-create massive uncertainty-if not immediately privatize assets and services then run them down especially the Health/Education assets and services.
    Run CSIRO into the ground as well then privatize off sections-Pharma-Farm-Aquaculture etc.
    Privatise all prisons
    The LNP governments who are neo-conservative now beholding only to the corporations who fund them will do exactly what Globalist Central Bankers tell them.
    These Globalists want our RBA and Mints so that we too are PIIGS and have no fiscal Sovereignty left.

    US/EU bailouts vs Australian bailout

    I`ll begin with Australia because we were the Lone Ranger and Kevin Rudd was the right man in the right Prime Ministership because he did direct Stimulus getting BER and Pink Batts going along with a $900 cheque to everyone who paid tax in 2007-2008 tax year.
    The BER was is a fantastic legacy which has left schools with infrastructure that helps all.
    Over a million houses were insulated with Pink Batts which alone counted for a massive cutback of greenhouse emissions
    Rudd also spent on roads/bridges and shipping.
    Rudd also wanted an ETS but the Greens joined with the LNP to cruel what would have been unable to be repealed unlike the CT.
    Of course the Greens backed this up with supporting the LNP [again} with their DAP.

    Now the US began it`s stimulus with $85billion per month and this was given out to the VERY SAME BANKS which caused this GFC.
    What did they do with this stimulus money {they still get $65 billion per mth now] ?
    They play money market with it and HFT shares and derivatives doing the same as before but on an meth amphetamine scale [not cocaine like before]
    Meanwhile US infrastructure falls down and there are so many bridges either collapsed or unsafe in the US that it`s a National Shame.
    Europe did similar but forced Austerity and debt onto the poor who were not responsible.
    There`s a famous Youtube Irish journo/German Banker vid here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHu1kRT6hU
    The Greeks now are going to do something because all has failed and the crooks have embezzled all they can there and people have had enough.
    Let`s hope it`s a world wide trend.
    Thank you for your article Peter

  2. John Kelly

    How many roads must a man walk down before he can see that the present ‘belt tightening’ of the Australian economy, let alone any further plans, will most likely hasten a recession here that will further reduce revenues and increase the deficit, but with no compensating, value-adding improvement in our GDP?

  3. Phi

    What if the ‘Troika’ doesn’t have the well being of the failing states as its central objective?

    What if that is just talk – a propaganda to keep the soon to be losers quiet.?

    What if the ‘Troika’s’ real objective is to let the populations to fall into poverty whilst grabbing all their assets by stealth.?

    That seems to be what has been occurring to date.

    It’s time for ordinary citizens to call the bluff on power. The people have nothing to lose since Power intends to take what it wants and will kill if needs be to achieve that, although, for now, it appears that propaganda is the primary tool for coercion.

    What the western world is seeing here is predatory capitalist power play in full force – it is played out on communities lulled into complacency by the smooth sleaze of marketing and advertising, baubles and glitter . But beyond all this is a ruthless elite who intend to take all , at any price.

    Citizen passivity and niave trust will be treated with contempt. The peoples response must therefore be a coupling of intellectual and physical resistance – anything less will fail because the authorities and their corporate financiers are now virtual cyborgs.

  4. Matters Not

    were insulated with Pink Batts which alone counted for a massive cutback of greenhouse emissions

    Your assertion that Pink Batts ‘alone counted for a massive cutback in greenhouse emissions’ is just fanciful. ‘Massive cutback’ is just nonsense.

    But perhaps you have a link? LOL.

    Fact is, it was just a ‘drop in the ocean’. A mere ‘head nod’ re what is required,.

  5. Bighead1883

    Michael that`s two articles this person has trolled me on without bothering to comment on the article
    I don`t mind answering anyone`s genuine questions but I do flag this commenter.
    Matters NotJanuary 28, 2015 at 11:37 pm
    You`re a lazy person matters not,Google your own stuff because even the Greens liked this scheme.
    But if you look through further we see where over a million houses insulated in this scheme kept a million tonnes of Greenhouse gasses out of our atmosphere..
    Greens call for return of pink batts insulation scheme after …
    Sep 13, 2012 – Greens call for return of pink batts insulation scheme after report reveals … insulation saved just under one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions per year … about reducing power bills for people, then insulating buildings is a …
    [PDF]Residential thermal and acoustic insulation – Fletcher …
    Using less energy in the home helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pink Batts® … By installing Pink Batts® insulation you reduce heat transfer by up to 60% resulting in …. Of course there are many different types of Sisalation® reflective foil and each is …… regulated environmental management scheme. Novatech is an …

  6. Bighead1883

    PhiJanuary 28, 2015 at 11:33 pm
    Bang on mate that`s how they do it and Chomsky has been telling all who would listen to this for many years.

  7. Matters Not

    Bighead1883, I’ve clicked on all your ‘links’ and guess what, none of them ‘works’.

    I’m not surprised.

    When you say:

    even the Greens liked this scheme

    You reveal much.

    Good intentions no doubt.

    I will leave it at that.

  8. Roswell

    Matters Not can be a pedantic person, but he’s on our side.

  9. Jexpat


    Citing the Murdoch press for most anything other than an example of “teh stupid” is unlikely to further any rational argument.

  10. Bighead1883

    Jexpat you could yourself add to the betterment of this article and comment section but you choose to troll and in an inane and droll way.
    My argument is sound unlike your inane effort of supporting the LNP`s Direct Action Plan and siding with the LNP to defeat Rudd`s ETS.
    You Greens have done equal damage to RET in Australia with the LNP and the facts/citation is in Hansard

  11. Harquebus

    It is energy that makes money. Diminishing energy returns compounded by population growth is the cause of the current global economic slowdown. The less energy that we have at our disposal, the less productive we become. We have only seen the beginnings of austerity.
    Economics will not save us. The fact is, it is killing us and our environment.

  12. nurses1968

    Bighead 1883., We still have a long way to go.
    It does seem that the odd contradiction is ok with most Parties , when it suits them
    We have just had Australia day/ invasion day and many stood beside our Indigenous friends to support them.
    It apears it is OK to do so on specific days or when it suits but if it doesn’t fit the political agenda , then bugger land rights, or self determination.
    A classic example of saying one thing and doing another raises its ugly head in Tasmania .
    Here, both the Libs and the Greens need to pull their heads in
    Federal Member for Braddon Brett Whiteley has labelled Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations “fringe groups” in response to their opposition to the reopening of four-wheel drive tracks in the state’s west.

    The Tasmanian Aboriginal community is threatening to stage protests against the State Government’s decision to reopen the tracks through a section of of the Arthur-Pieman area.

    The previous government closed 15 tracks in 2012 to protect threatened species and Aboriginal heritage sites, angering four-wheel drive enthusiasts.

    and on top of that

    Australian Greens leader Christine Milne has attacked Tasmania’s main Aboriginal organisation for offering to drop a court case in return for land hand-backs.

    Last week Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman used an Australia Day event to announce he was open to the handing back of traditional lands.

    In return, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) said it would consider dropping a court case aimed at stopping the reopening of four-wheel-drive tracks in the Tarkine region on the state’s west coast.

    Senator Milne said the Indigenous group’s response was a bad idea.

    “I don’t think it’s appropriate that you have that kind of linking,” she said.


  13. Jexpat


    Not sure where you glean any support for the so called “direct action” plan- in whatever incarnation it might take, but the fact of the matter is that the carbon pricing system was working as planned (just as it has in British Columbia).

    That’s why it’s been adopted by the governors of the West Coast States of Oregon Washington and California as their preferred model for reducing emissions while growing their economies.

    This is what we call “evidence based policy making.”


    As to former PM Rudd and the less effective and more easily rorted ETS scheme, the time was ripe for a double dissolution on the matter. All he had to do was pull the trigger on it.

    Finally, it’s not really a big ask for posters to find sources other than Murdoch to support their contentions.

  14. Bighead1883

    nurses1968January 29, 2015 at 11:44 am
    A well sounded out argument comrade and it`s well known that Labor is the only chance First Australians will have at either Recognition in the Constitution or Sovereignty.
    Sovereignty is what they call for and the Left in Labor agrees wholeheartedly with them,but now the right is also coming on board.
    let`s all be real here because we see the alternative all day every day.
    Vote Labor and make sure to tell them to
    “Turn Left” and stay there at every opportunity.

  15. Bighead1883

    Jexpat January 29, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    Yes it`s well know the Greens didn`t get their 40 or so % target with Rudd only half that so they decided to vote with the LNP and have nothing,you idiots voted to have nothing and we could have had an ETS up and running but you GREENS chose to have NOTHING
    There! that`s evidence based,it`s in Hansard.
    You`re pathetic and here`s a word from Julia about you Greens

  16. Jexpat

    Seems that Bighead doesn’t grasp what evidence based policy making is.

    Colour me surprised.

  17. Bighead1883

    You have nothing but empty rhetoric Labor has achievements dating back to 1894
    Didn`t like what Julia had to say about you Greens did you? I`ll dig up more then hey
    The Greens voted against an ETS and sided with the LNP,we`ll never forget and I`m going to remind all on #auspol #qldpol and #nswpol Twitter,very often

  18. Jexpat

    Well, given that we have two state elections coming up with optional preferencing- and given that Labor relies on Green’s preferences to outpoll the LNP in many electorates, most would see gratuitous and pugnacious Green bashing as a counter-productive effort.

    A reasonable person would also think that someone with the Labor Party’s best interests in mind would want to increase their preference flows and limit their exhaustion.

    But apparently a certain few would rather cut off their noses to spite their own tribal faces.

  19. nurses1968

    It isn’t guaranteed that the Greens would preference Labor.
    It appears many just dont preference at all
    This was posted on another site
    “I hope those voting in QLD don’t listen to Newman and just vote 1 without issuing preferences .If you want to try to beat the LNP, particularly Greens voters, preference.

    According to ABC political commentator Atony Green , in 2012

    “COMMENT: Half of Green voters did not give preferences in 2012, as many as 70% in some seats”

  20. Jexpat


    That’s the point.

    In close elections, the party that harvests preferences most effectively will often see their candidate reach the required number or quota. Remember in optional preferencing system, the winner is NOT determined by a 50% +1 margin.

    So the wise strategy is to encourage voters to execrise their right to preference and increase the flow to your candidate, whether through HTV’s or by other means of persuasion, which typically emphasise common interests (or if that’s not deemed effective, than by recourse to choice of evils).

    For example, there are certain seats in Northern NSW where a Greens candidate has the best chance to defeat a National. Now, you may not care for the Greens, but is that more important than defeating a sitting National MP?

    Similarly, Greens candidate Sam Hibbins won the Liberal held seat of Prahran in Victoria- through preference flows.

    Would you really rather have had a Liberal MP retain that seat?

  21. nurses1968

    My point was, you said “Labor relies on Green’s preferences to outpoll the LNP in many electorates,”
    On the Antony Green figures , where up to 70% of Greens don’t preference,” at all I wouldn’t consider the Greens preferences as something you would want to rely on .
    It is not me who needs reminding of the optional preferencing system , it is that 70% of Greens
    Given the Greens can expect 7% -8% at best of the vote, their vote is being expended very early in the piece if they only vote 1
    and they aren’t getting a say in who their candidate will be .
    Voting 1 candidate benefits the LNP, that is why Campbell Newman has campaigned on this.
    I hope the Greens ignore Newman and number all squares, which is something the majority didn’t do in 2012

  22. Jexpat

    Preference flows vary with elections and electorates.

    I’ve seen as high as 80% flow to Labor and as low as 40% (which interestingly enough was due to their own dirty tricks in the recent State by-election in Newcastle. Essentially head office ordered their booth workers to place official looking placards in prominent spots, inferring that a ballot would be informal unless there was only a #1.

    Later in the afternoon, based on exit polling, head office instructed booth workers to hand out flyers with their HTV’s to the same effect. Not very bright, since the Newcastle Lord Mayor election was scheduled three weeks later- in which the Labor candidate was very eager to maximise Greens preference flows.

    But that’s all really beside the point.

    The bottom line is that a sure way to lose on preference flows is to bash those who’d consider giving them to your candidate. In essence, what we’ve got with optional preferencing is an American style GOTV (get out the vote) effort. And as any progressive familiar with American politics knows all too well, when the Democratic Party leaders backhand, backstab and/or gratuitously insults its constituencies, they don’t turn out to vote.

    Witnesseth their demise in 2010 and 2014.

  23. diannaart

    Its tough trying to work together – we don’t always agree with each other 100% of the time – is that a good enough reason to ostracise a person or a political party all of the time?

    I don’t always agree with Labor – refugee policy, continued support on fossil fuel mining, failure to rescind chaplaincy program, subsiding of massive corporations, continued subsidising of private for profit schools…. and way more (must make a list and keep it handy for whenever Labor is touted as the Single Great Hope). I do keep faith that Labor will eventually return to its heartland and fight for Australia instead of, like the LNP, bleed Australia.

    I don’t always agree with the Greens – they tend to expect 100% their way (as do so many of us) and lose an opportunity to at least reach 75% of their aims. That is no reason to reject them wholly – I would posit they would stand up to an ICAC better than either the LNP or Labor.

    As Author of this article, Peter Martin said:

    We all have bad ideas from time to time.

    The best opportunity to rescue Australia is for parties with the most in common to work together – need I remind people that ‘united we stand”?

  24. nurses1968

    Now I don’t want to get into maths , or other states or countries for that matter as I was just pointing out a Greens failing when it comes to preferences .
    An example would be Ashgrove , Campbell Newmans seat , in 2012
    The Greens polled 2638 votes .
    or around 9%
    If 70 % failed to allocate preferences {As pointed out by the ABCs Antony Green} ,
    then 1846 of those votes were expended on the first count
    That left 790 that voted all boxes.
    If Labor managed 40% of those preferences it would mean labor got 316 of 2638 preferences
    So 2322 Greens preferences did not manage to get to Labor .
    Who, other than Newman does that favour. ?

    Time for the Greens to look hard at preferencing

  25. Jexpat

    And visa versa.

  26. corvus boreus

    On this thread you have twice called ‘troll’ on other regular posters, then called others “idiots” and “pathetic”.
    Such antics lower the tone of discussion and invite acrimony and personal mud-slinging into the discourse.
    The factual information related about the games played by the Greens around the ETS was valid, the abuse that followed was not.

    As for your vow to flood social media with anti-Green sentiment, if you really think that will help regain the votes of those who have strayed (ie walked away in disgust) from Labor, go for it.
    For myself, this one lives in NSW where we have suffered the corrupt predations of the Labor right (esp the ‘Terrigal mob’) for years, and seeing as the ‘right’ faction is currently ascendent in federal Labor, and actively refusing to support any proposed measures of accountability, your derogatory twittering will definitely not help win back my vote for your old-boy party of factional tribalism and entrenched corruptions.
    Supporting a federal ICAC might.

    At the last federal election, in the seat of Fairfax, Labor preferenced Clive Palmer over the rival Lib candidate, but in Denison they preferenced the Lib candidate over Andrew Wilkie. Palmer good, Wilkie bad?
    There is a need for general scrutiny on practices of preferencing.

  27. Bighead1883

    Well Winston Smith,Diamond Joe Jexpat Green Lantern are probably 4 or 5 alias you use because they all write the same.
    Irrespective your points are mooted as Nurses1968 easily carved you up figuratively.
    Your Party are nothing but scoundrels never to be trusted in a coalition of any sort.
    When some of Labor`s most trusted and beloved want you Greens totally pissed off from us it makes all sit up and take notice.
    Julia Gillard and Anthony Albanese will be listened to far more than Christine Milne.
    Whomever you are you never needed to troll my comment here and every time you troll me again I`m going to open an attack on the Greens relentlessly,you are warned for the last time TROLL
    Labor cannot work with the Greens Diannaart and they should have stayed an environmental Party but they have twice now voted against Labor concerning environment {against Rudd`s ETS and For the LNP`s DAP}

  28. Bighead1883

    corvus boreusJanuary 29, 2015 at 5:38 pm
    Well corvus boreus I have been trolled by this person because his reply to me was totally out of the articles context and whether he`s a regular troll or part time troll isn`t a concern of mine.
    WTF it`s to do with you is also not my concern.
    I began this thread as a gentleman and got trolled,now I defend myself as I see fit.

  29. corvus boreus

    I generally prefer discourse without base sledging (aka ‘trolling’), but feel free to slag off others as you see fit.

  30. nurses1968

    corvus boreus 5:38 pm
    I’m not in a Party although I support Labor.
    I don’t agree with all the preference deals Labor do
    I just get sick and tired of getting lectures from the Greens on preferencing and the “evil ALP’ and their preferencing bad, ours good ramblings.
    My point above re Greens preferencing or lack thereof is not my opinion.
    it is the research of the ABCs Antony Green
    If the Greens fail to preference in up to 70% of cases in some seats, surely they should be the last to throw stones,
    “glass houses ”
    On their own admission, they are extremely unlikely to even go close to winning seats in QLD, so if they want Newman gone , best they get their preferencing right.
    They should put their Queensland effort and resources to some use, and preferencing seems to be the only way they can help

  31. corvus boreus

    I, too, am not a member of any party, and I support the party/s or individual/s whose current stated policies best align with my own standpoint of honestly enacting measures likely to be beneficial to the commons and posterity.
    Making your own full preferencing in terms of local HoR candidates should be easy for anyone with half an interest as the field is quite limited and the platforms of the candidates usually known.
    The current Senate system, however, is a shambles that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to make an informed choice of full allocation on the upper house electoral bed-sheet of parties, individuals and fronts. This creates the dilemma of either making a full choice based on partial information, or placing your trust entirely in the allocated preferences of your party of first choice. This needs the reform of a limited preferencing option.
    P.s. I hope ‘the Greens’ stop subjecting you to rambling lectures on preferences.

  32. corvus boreus

    I would like some corroborative evidence on your repeated claim that the Greens voted in support of direct action. Such a claim directly contradicts numerous reports.

  33. Bighead1883

    Greens offer to do a deal on direct action, but keep the RET

    Greens offer to do a deal on direct action, but keep the RET

    This was done and the Greens can make whatever excuse for it but they yet again showed that they are not to be trusted with environmental issues and if you me or anyone believes that the LNP will uphold their end of the RET bargain then madness has surely taken control.
    Since September when the Greens voted to let the DAP go ahead the attack on Australia`s Renewable Energy sector by the LNP has quadrupled.
    Google the AFR and read up on how many businesses have closed
    Read how the attacks by Corpse Energy Providers have attacked homeowner solar installations and deals back to the grid.
    Thank you for this because i should have put in more citations,but I forget so many are kept in the dark by time constraints and work commitments whereas I have more time than most in my capacity as a carer to keep my eye on WTF is actually happening.

  34. Bighead1883

    PS I`ve started Tweeting this information by the Fifth Estate out as well.
    Corvus boreus could you please supply links to those,in your words {directly contradicts numerous reports.} as I would like to read what the Greens have said about not voting with the LNP on this.

  35. corvus boreus

    The vote on DAP was not in September. The report you cited was about a negotiatory offer made by the Greens to try to retain the RET, rejected by the government..
    The vote on DAP was on October 31st, and the Greens senators voted (with Labor) to oppose the plan.
    For verification,
    Other news publications (even Murdoch ones) concur.

  36. nurses1968

    corvus boreus
    My understanding on this issue on what I’ve read on other sites was that the Greens Senators voted with Labor in the Senate to oppose the DAP
    ONLY AFTER Abbott refused the offer of Christine Milne to negotiate to Support the DAP and its passage through the Senate
    It appears it was Abbotts pig headedness rather than a Greens conscience that brought about the current situation.
    Milne definitely made the offer

  37. corvus boreus

    Glance up.

  38. Bighead1883

    Well thank you for that and you are correct they did not VOTE with the LNP on DAP .
    I`m with Nurses on this still because I`m mistaken on what transpired but not on intent.
    I stand corrected on my statement without reservation at all
    I`ll have to tweek my meme
    Still does not exonerate Greens for no ETS because my wrongness is some typing on an Indie publication the Greens wrongness has seen Australia without an ETS for nearly 6 years and Greg Hunt says there won`t be one.
    Damn Madigan and Damn Xenophon to hell with the Greens.

  39. corvus boreus

    Graceful. Keep that eye open and maintain that rage.

  40. Bighead1883

    You bet,for my old mate Kevin Rudd I will.
    Those in Labor can admit to a wrong,that`s something the Greens still can`t do,they`re not wrong,they`re an excuse.
    Can you tell me how an ETS would have helped Australia when Kevin was PM.

  41. corvus boreus

    An emissions trading scheme would have provided one method to help reduce the nation’s carbon emissions, which the majority consensus of scientists claim are significantly contributing to/causing a destructive destabilisation of the planet’s climate systems.
    I do not think the Greens should have voted against the motion just because it fell short of their ideal target.

    Now, about that ICAC I mentioned earlier?

    Ps Do not labour under the misapprehension that you are conversing with an unthinking apologist for the actions of any political party or faction.

  42. Bighead1883

    Well put and you may conclude that I was and still am an avid supporter of an ETS
    Now I`ll tell you something about myself that`s very well known and that is never have I supported offshore processing of refugees and I am an avid supporter of a Federal ICAC.
    Any politicians who are not then have something to hide.
    But also we have to demand Royal Commissions.
    The minor party status of the Greens will not hold enough weight for a Federal ICAC but prior the 2016 Half Senate during the Federal Election the pressure being put onto all Parties is going to see some resignations as the way is brought forward for a Federal ICAC in the future.
    Not hard for any to read between the lines there and Fitzgerald opening up on QLD`s LNP is not going to stop there as NSW ICAC continues.

    But nothing may also happen and the CIA just keeps calling the shots via the AI&JAC

  43. corvus boreus

    Unfortunately, the federal ALP in its’ current form does not seem to be in favour of a federal ICAC.

    Labor senators unanimously voted against the motion for one last March(albeit on reason/pretext of an attempted Greens ‘gag-motion’), and have flatly refused to address the subject since.

    Bill Shorten actively spoke against the need for one last September, instead vowing to “work constructively in a bipartisan fashion to ensure we have the strongest possible defences against any perception of corruption”.
    Perception is cognitive identification, and the best defense against cognition is camouflage and concealment.
    It reads as a pledge to collude with Tony and cronies to hide or disguise political corruption.

    That one definitely cost him my support.

  44. Bighead1883

    Therefore is a dilemma in that for the benefit of saving those things which Australians hold some principled folk may vote against their best interests just like on 7/9/`13 and we see that the so called honest Johns were not such and proceed to rape pillage and plunder.
    They plan to run down our Education and Health Services and infrastructure which Labor gave unto the good folk.
    The vision of Gough Whitlam in a free university education for all and a Universal Health system would be put in jeopardy by folk who thought they were being morally correct but lacking judgement.
    I railed against Bill Shorten as not the best man to lead my Party and voted such but for the time being we have him.
    So I ask myself what type of Labor would he be leading because I know that under him Education and health are safe.
    Well I know we would still have a car building industry in Australia under a Bill Shorten government as they may yet be saved by public demand.
    I also know we would have a shipbuilding and submarine build industries along with Newcastle and Whyalla steel manufacturing.
    I know workers in the public service and health and education would be far more secure.
    I know we would not be subjected to TERROR propaganda 24/7 and I know we would not be ruled by fear politics.
    I also know our judiciary would not be used as a political tool and neither the AFP.
    I know the wages and penalty rates of workers would be safe and superannuation would go to 12%
    I also know Australia would be a friendlier place all round.

    So when I add up and weigh the pros and cons of a morality that may or may not ever come to be {Fed ICAC] i still say to myself that even under the Bill Shorten who killed off MY pm Rudd and our first female and GREAT PM Gillard we here in Australia would be far far better off with Bill Shorten as PM.

  45. Jexpat

    Since we’ve lost the plot on the OP- the last thing I’m going to post on this thread is that if ever there was a clever LNP member who wanted to see Liberals win elections, then Bighead’s posts surely fit the profile.

  46. Bighead1883

    At least my profile doesn`t fit the felcher you are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: