Wait for the bills. The opinion poll finding that an increased proportion of people think the introduction of the carbon tax will not hurt them should come as no surprise. In most cases, so far it hasn’t. The relevant measure will be after householders receive their first energy bills containing the increase caused by it.
From poor decision to vindication. On Friday she had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not agreeing to a new tax. On Saturday, provided you read down far enough in the story, Julia Gillard was vindicated.
A mighty backdown that illustrates perfectly the quote of the day I included in my snippets last week:
‘So much punditry is the sound of previous mistakes being corrected.’
A quote of the day
Libor could well be the asbestos claims of this century
— James Cox, law professor at Duke University on the “ginormous” ramifications of misreporting by banks of the index used around the world to fix lending rates.
Some news and views noted along the way.
- ECB could take haircut on Greek bonds in ‘last chance’ plan
- New discovery of how carbon is stored in the Southern Ocean
- Think you’re a comic genius? Maybe you’re just overconfident — Researcher reveals the truth behind polite guffaws
- The Olympics and bare feet: What have we learned?
- Flirting is powerful negotiating tool, academics find
Regarding the impact of power bills & the carbon charge.
If the bills asy that they increased by x amount
becuase of the carbon charge shouldn’t they also lis
the compensation to ameliorate the charge
Or would such honesty be beyond that of the power industry
Richard – “Chunky bits” (1): It has already been proven that the rise in
power prices is due to many factors, and that carbon pricing is only
a minor proportion of that increase. To that end, the compensation
paid by the government will more than cover any part of the price
rise due to carbon pricing. Could we have a few FACTS please?
“Chunky bits” (2): Anything written by Peter VO should be taken as
partisan. Isn’t he a former Liberal staffer? Or at least a well known Coalition
supporter. He would say that, wouldn’t he.
And who would be the first person in the country to cry “great big new
tax”, if the PM had agreed to a “levy” to fund the NDIS? Our illustrious
leader of the opposition, of course. And all the premiers of the same
persuasion, despite suggesting it, would have been only too happy to
follow their federal leader and beat Gillard around the head with it.
While I feel sure the PM did keep up the pressure on the recalcitrant
premiers, it was the avalanche of negative feedback from the general
public which was most responsible for the change of heart from the
NSW and Victorian lot. You only had to listen to Jon Faine (ABC 774)
interviewing Ted Baileau last Monday morning to know that!
Finally, the premiers were not supposed to be negotiating over the
availability of funds for when the NDIS is fully operational – 2018 – but
over miniscule amounts of money to start the launch sites in each
state. Peter VO is either badly informed or deliberately mischevious.
Either way he has seriously misled his readers. Typical Ltd. News!
I read Crikey! to get a true perspective of what is going on – not to
have “The Australian” garbage presented as though it had some
credibility. Must do better, Richard!
PVO – “Is that an agenda in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see us stumble?”
Van Onselen is indeed a former Liberal staffer – he was a member of staff of Tony Abbott when he was Minister for Workplace Relations.
While Van Onselen predictably supports the Coalition and attacks Labor, his attack on Gillard for not introducing a levy to fund the national disability insurance scheme was a big miscalculation since the proposal was so weak it shouldn’t have been taken seriously by anyone, including Liberal supporters.