Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Here's the quote

Lenore Taylor referred to this last night on Q&A, but I see that Michelle Grattan had already quoted it on line:
In all Abbott’s talk about the mandate he will have, it is worth noting his own view in other circumstances. He wrote after the Howard government’s 2007 defeat: “[Opposition leader Brendan] Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of ‘mandates’. What exactly is Rudd’s mandate anyway: to be an economic conservative or an old-fashioned Christian socialist? The elected opposition is no less entitled than the elected government to exercise judgement and to try to keep its election commitments.
Thanks for explaining that to us, Tony!

I trust the new Labor leader will quote that back at the government frequently with respect to carbon pricing.

The other matter which will make the debate interesting will be the IPCC report due out very soon.  It is expected to be strong, and should make the Labor and Green's position on carbon pricing appear more principled than ever.

If Labor had any sense, they would also be lining up economists to talk about how the "direct action" plan cannot plausibly reach its targets at the set cost Abbott has committed himself to.

I also note this from the LDP's website:  after a lot of dumb skeptic talk about how AGW isn't yet proved, it ends with:
Should the evidence become compelling that global warming is due to human activity, that such global warming is likely to have significantly negative consequences for human existence, and that changes in human activity could realistically reverse those consequences, the LDP would favour market-based options.
I doubt that a libertarian Senator will ever change on this - but if their website is to be believed, they may prefer carbon pricing to "direct action".

2 comments:

nottrampis said...

except the evidence is compelling.

no numerate person could think otherwise unless they were goebbelsising

SteveC said...

Checking the AEC website shows the combination of all the lib/nats variations got 37.5% of the senate vote. Labor/Green got 39%. You would have to check what the carbon price policy of all the other parties is to do a thorough check, but 37.5% is not much of a mandate.

All the discussion of mandate does seem to ignore the fact that people actually vote for the senate.