Comments on: A Long Day in Politics

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:20:55 +0000

It remains obvious that the carbon tax is a tax that destroys its own revenue base.

Graeme – nice to see you’re catching up.

By: Shem Bennett

Shem Bennett — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:51:08 +0000

Pragmatism is largely subjective but I wouldn’t say it’s useless. Political pragmatism is often based on a mix of polling and just personal experience. If everyone I talk to wants action on climate change and thinks not acting is like being a holocaust denier then I’m going to think action on climate change is pragmatic.

Politics is about power and belief. You can have strong beliefs, but without pragmatism you’ll never have the power to see your beliefs implemented. Unless you are REALLY good at convincing people anyway. While the LDP represents libertarian belief so far it’s done nothing for libertarianism. It has no power. The Democrats and Republicans have done more for libertarianism than the Libertarian Party in the US. They’ve just done more against libertarianism, too.

I think a political party like the LDP just needs to be on the side of smaller government, not always trying to push small government. Each issue needs to be dealt with within the political context within which it’s in.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:49:01 +0000

Graeme — you are making a point that I have made many times before. A carbon tax will shrink over time. Especially if you introduce a McKitrick clause.

So if you reduce other taxes, and replace them with a tax that is going to disappear (or at least, shrink) then you will have reduced the total tax take. If you want to increase or maintain taxes… then that’s a bad thing. But if, like me, you would like to see taxes reduced… then it’s a good thing.

Of course, this benefit doesn’t exist as much with an ETS and it doesn’t exist unless you cut other taxes. That is why it’s important to loudly argue that any climate change policy should include tax cuts. That has been my point from the beginning.

By: graemebird

graemebird — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:29:15 +0000

Lets have an answer for this most brazen lie of revenue-neutrality. Putting aside the unethical nature of putting forward stealing-neutrality in the first place. Just lets put that aside. It remains obvious that the carbon tax is a tax that destroys its own revenue base.

To suggest otherwise is to claim that the carbon tax will be unsuccessful. I’ve challenged proponents on this but they are dishonest so they run away. The carbon tax systematically destroys its basis for its own revenue. So this idea that its going to replace company tax and lead to an increased tax free threshold must be seen for the lie that it is.

If its not a lie, then the carbon tax would be ineffectual. In which case why the hell propose it in the first place?

By: Damian

Damian — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:14:27 +0000

“It’s a funny thing funny thing – it seems “the need for pragmatism” is always brought up when someone wants other people to be pragmatic in supporting them”

Of course, pragmatism is an essentially meaningless movable one-size-fits-all buzzword.

By: graemebird

graemebird — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:08:48 +0000

“Mudi, Turnball really believed in the ETS. So he couldn’t just oppose it.”

He could have come good with the evidence is what he could have done. Policy isn’t about following irrational beliefs. See what you are saying here is “I believe this …… but if you believe THAT …… well if thats your “bag” man I’m cool with your beliefs. Follow your star..”

But you cannot be like this. Its not a question of belief. Its a scientific question. And we had a whole contingent of born traitors who refused to come good with the evidence and jumped from foot to foot talking about principle sometimes and pragmatism when it suited them.

By: Fleeced

Fleeced — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:15:28 +0000

It’s also interesting to hear people talk of Turnbull being “pragmatic” in supporting the ETS… since so many in his own party were opposed – surely political pragmatism would have demanded he set his own views aside?

It’s a funny thing funny thing – it seems “the need for pragmatism” is always brought up when someone wants other people to be pragmatic in supporting them

By: 'Nuke' Gray

'Nuke' Gray — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:01:58 +0000

Mudi, Turnball really believed in the ETS. So he couldn’t just oppose it. Therefore, it was best for him to go. Also, he tried to run the party like a CEO, not an equal partner. Another reason to replace him.
If he learns that leaders are not Ceasars, Malcolm will have a future in politics. Or he might go back to the Republican movement.

By: mudi

mudi — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:05:34 +0000

With a vote of 54 to 29 against the ETS, its clear that turnball should have just opposed it… The party has done the right thing. When the leader no longer represents the party its time to go.

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:22:40 +0000

There are people that vote for major parties or the Greens that would like the LDP message of smaller government.

Then they are obviously deciding who to vote for by throwing darts at a board. Perhaps our how to vote cards should be in the form of dartboards.

People that generally don’t like taxes while at the same time think “something” should be done.

When people say “something should be done”, they usually mean “by the government”.