Carbon tax – the great monolith of stupidity & political correctness

Controversial News | Intentious | Cartoon by Mark Knight, Adelaide Now

Cartoon by Mark Knight

Intentious recently published an article on political correctness, and it has inspired me to write this.

Australia’s Carbon Tax was signed into law on Tuesday. This signals the death of reason in our country, brought up by a Labor left and Green alliance. It signals the rise of a new pseudo-political party, a Labor-Greens coalition.

Not only did Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard betray the electorate, she is trying to entrench her betrayal by making the law un-repealable… essentially spitting in the face of voters who would vote her out of office over the law.

Traditionally, poltical parties stood for principles, like “workers” or “big business.” This politcal movement now relies on political correctness and co-opting the media cycle to win office.

Their nefarious strategy is a progression as follows:

1- They suggest a grandoise, idealistic idea. It must be for the greater good and have immense symbolic value e.g. apology to the stolen generations, climate change, making asylum seeker policy more humane. The more demonstrably pure the intention, the more suitable it is for the next step…

2- Claim the moral high ground. This requires religious devotion to a cause. This involves supporting tribes over principle, and refusing to listen to anyone who opposes the tribe, HATE anyone who opposes the tribe. e.g. the irrational hatred of Tony Abbott. This moral superiority also assumes that people have a right not to be offended by someone elses opinion.

3- Paint your detractors as evil. If you disagree with them you are a “denier” you are a “racist”, you are “in the pay of big oil.” For example, if you opposed the proposed mandatory Internet filter, you support paedophilia. The aim of this is to use the moral high ground as a beat stick against your opponents, because they are morally bankrupt if they even suggest anything that disagrees with you. This is completely contrary to the idea of freedom of speech. It is an attempt to shut down debate… the only bias allowed is that which is sympathetic to the cause, and to only listen to approved sources of propaganda. e.g. Media inquiry, skewering coalition by blaming them for “all boats sinking after deal collapses”, climate sceptics are in the “pay of big oil” etc

4- Avoid scrutiny of actual implementation, the consequences of choices and the associated chocies; never look at the balance sheet. If there are cost blow outs, if the gesture had no effect (was purely symbolic) and was not value-for-money, then the moral high ground, in their eyes, justifies the expense. The aim is not to defend a position empircally, but to “points score” using the media cycle. The problem with this approach is that it is prime for rorting by clever crooks. e.g. pink batts, asylum seekers, effectiveness of the carbon tax, QANTAS shutdown. This detachment allows a politician who follows this philosophy to say “night is day” to your face.

I suspect that it is part of Australian subculture, that has grown out of the beauracracy and the unions. It comes from a worship of process, adherence to the “right thing to do” and using moral superiority as a bludgeon to silence detractors. It is disconnected from reality because everyone is afraid to check the balance sheet when the dust settles.

This approach, this workship of symbolism over reason, is contrary and anathema to good leadership.

The key to skewering these sophists is to hold them to account on item 4. with as much evidence as possible to bring to bear. Most of the material they use is pure jingoism and has no substance with phrases such as “price on carbon” and “clean energy future”, utterly meaningless cliches played from a broken record.

Bring the debate back into the discussion, rather than letting the politically correct speaker to preach from a pulpit. Hold them to the consequences of their choices.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Politics, Law

Author:Richard Lee

Food Critic

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

16 Comments on “Carbon tax – the great monolith of stupidity & political correctness”

  1. James Hill
    November 10, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    It’s tragic how the left totally and utterly abandoned the notion of free speech the moment they got into power. For decades people compared John Howard and the Liberal party to Hitler and Nazis (former Prime Minister Paul Keating did just this, in fact) and no one bats an eyelid. Now that Labour/Greens are in power, they’re teary eyed, demanding apologies to holocaust victims when a liberal senator accuses Get Up of acting like the Hitler Youth. The left don’t debate any more. They just figure out how best to portray themselves as victims and rely on public sympathy to shut down the discussion.

    • November 10, 2011 at 10:38 am #

      I agree. They want to lecture to a captive audience and not be challenged on any of their ideas, because they are inbued with a zealous crusader’s sense of self-righteousness.

      The problem with lecturing voters is that sometimes they walk up to you in shopping malls and say , “I’m not stupid!”

  2. November 10, 2011 at 11:37 pm #

    Another great example of “claiming the moral high ground” to skewer critics
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/community-sector-workers-to-get-pay-rise-20111110-1n9ji.html

    Giving the lowest paid workers and women a pay rise is a good and just deal, right? They’re not just trying to buy votes, right?

    “Women are paid 1/5 less than men”

    The comparison fails however, when you consider this, if overall women take jobs in lower paid nurturing roles such as teaching and as carers, wouldn’t you expect the average pay of women overall to be proportionately less?

    And who would dare to deny these carers a pay rise? They themselves call for more money for the thankless task before them.

    Wait a minute.

    What happens if you started comparing jobs like-for-like in brackets? What happens when you start accounting for maternity absence without paid maternity leave? The more you examine it, the more one realises the spin on the statistics, and that saying “no” makes you morally bankrupt.

    Okay.

    I always remind myself that no money is free… that $2 Billion dollars earmarked from this came from somewhere. It is pork barreling to buy votes. And to say no to it makes you heartless, and politically incorrect.

    Good policy does not need moral blackmail. But to the new paradigm, moral blackmail is mandatory. It fits with the narrative that any who argue otherwise is evil….

    • November 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

      Please, convert this into an article in itself, it’s fantastic.

  3. Laura M
    November 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    “It’s tragic how the left totally and utterly abandoned the notion of free speech the moment they got into power.”
    Do we even have freedom of speech in Australia? People often go back to freedom of speech but I think you will find that this concept is and American not an Australian thing. In fact, there is nothing in the Australian constitution granting the provision for freedom of speech. It’s a notion that has gained more acceptance in our society, but there is nothing constitutionally to back it up as a right.

    As far as I am concerned, both sides of parliament are being whiny little bitches at the moment. It is this whole he said, she did battle. Neither will work together to achieve anything and it’s just an embarrassment really. I can’t see how any side of Parliament is doing anything to benefit anybody but themselves these days.

    • November 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

      Interesting about no constitutional written law to back it up…

      • Richard Lee
        November 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

        The problem with a “bill of rights” is that it becomes fodder for lawyers and they use it to make trivial things worthy of a lawsuit. So if someone disrespects you… that violates your human rights?

        Freedom of speech is an important principle in democracy, and it doesn’t need to be enshrined in law for the principle to be recognised and honoured.

        • November 15, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

          “The problem with a “bill of rights” is that it becomes fodder for lawyers and they use it to make trivial things worthy of a lawsuit.”

          That is not true. The statutory Charter that exists in Victoria, Australia, has not increased litigation. Neither can the High Court award restitution/damages if an entrenched human or democratic right is breached. Other countries like Canada, yes, this is the case that there Supreme Court can award restitution/damages. However, this does not apply to the Commonwealth Constitution.

          “Freedom of speech is an important principle in democracy, and it doesn’t need to be enshrined in law for the principle to be recognised and honoured.”

          Well, with that being said, you have no constitutional right to freedom of speech. You do, however, have the democratic right of freedom to political communication (it is distinguishable from freedom of speech which is regulated by tort law i.e defamation). You have this right to political communication because it is implied in the Commonwealth Constitution under s. 7 and s. 24 (if memory serves me correctly) and cases before the High Court have consolidated it, such as the 1992 (1993?) dispute over amendments made to the Broadcasting Act 1942. It exists as more of a civil right that has restrictions in common law and statute law.

          So, yes, you do not have freedom of speech, per se, but freedom of political speech (to elect a representative in elections). And that is only an implied right that is subject to the interpretation of the High Court of Australia. It is, however, unlikely to be repealed if they want anyone to vote 😉

          Regards,
          Chabel Khan.

  4. November 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    Also,I would like to address your article:

    1. This “idealism”, however quixotic you may define it to be, is not bad. We need a normative model to exist in order to aspire to something. Australia, so the coalition believes, should aspire to a system of renewable energy that will not be environmentally as impacting on our immediate environment and do our bit in the global community (yes, our emissions account for 1.5% in the globe, but it is high per capita and it would not hurt Australians to be a bit more resourceful).

    2. “Claiming the moral high ground” is necessary if we want to be involved in discussions about other countries reducing their emissions, especially as Australians live in relative opulence compared to the rest of the world despite all our moaning. It is not going to undermine whether you are able to live or die if you get taxed per tonne you emit; it does impinge upon the “free market” as all markets have regulations. It is just accommodating the environmental/social costs that some industry incur and not allowing them to have a free ride.

    3. That “freedom of speech” you do not have. You have freedom of political communication.

    4. I am not sure how the government plans to implement the tax, but it is not as onerous as so many people make it out to be considering your position globally in terms of wealth and the costs it will incur. The proposed tax is not even the world’s biggest, despite popular campaigns. It is trumped by Sweden’s 1997 figure of $150 a tonne of CO2 and their economy unaffected. New Zealand has/had a $15 a tonne scheme.

    I do not support this government, I am not some environmental nut (in fact I am a sceptic), but invest a few dollars in improving our conditions of life and encouraging others to do the same — why not? Stop making this about politics and science, and just accept that we sometimes regulate markets and this is now a new concept.

    Regards,
    Chabel Khan.

  5. rich
    November 15, 2011 at 10:51 pm #

    I like your response because it is devoid of political correctness. Although I do find your argument a little difficult to follow, and mean no disrespect in that observation.

    My counterpoint would be: What is this tax buying?

    The moral thrust of it is purely symbolic, the cartoon chosen by our host really illustrates the point. The morality of the tax is a beatstick taken to cane its detractors- It will do nothing quantifiable to change the climate. BUT it will fill coffers of a government that has squandered the nation’s surplus on feel good, politically correct claptrap.

    Not that I like coalition policy either. It is a fig leaf, another abomination of the political correctness of our time.

    Companies should pay for damage and for pollution, but not for something amorphous or unquantifiable in its result like a tax on “carbon”. I think there is too much moaning too, but as a numbers man (I am an engineer, not a lawyer) I am wondering what gain we get from donning a hairshirt, flagellating ourselves and paying this tax. No gain for the public, just help Labor get into surplus by EOF 2012.

    Aspiration is entirely fine. But it has to be realistic, not ideal. It has to be measurable, not hand waved. And it has to produce results, not be a genuflection to the god of political correctness.

    I hope they invent the fusion reactor tomorrow. Then we can move pollution discussion to tritium poisoning….

    • November 15, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

      Cheers for the reply!

      I am sorry, it was not to read as an argument, per se, but to read as the point I find relevant to the original post.

      Let me outline a few more points (with some elucidations):

      * The government creates a normative model they believe Australians should adopt (i.e a ‘greener’ future with renewable energies). Of course, this is because of coalition compromise and is not necessarily what we all signed up for, but that is how representative democracy works.

      * In order to do this, we would need to implement a carbon tax to accommodate for the alleged impact some industries make in our market in terms of environment/social outcomes. This is not certain, but it has a swag of evidence suggesting it is a real possibility. Viewing the problem from a consequentialist perspective: a) if we do not act, environmental conditions in Australia locally may worsen or b) nothing changes, business as usual. However, it seems that a small tax of $23 a tonne might ensure that Australia is in good stead to maintain its environmental conditions; this seems a negligible sum in terms of ensuring that things can run as business as usual and does not project to any large economic disruption (as evidenced by Sweden or even New Zealand).

      * Other consequences of a tax is that it means we are now a part of the political arena that can make bargains with the bigger emitters — think of all the northern European countries that already have carbon tax schemes and how it will increase our international relations. We will be seen as a country where we encourage new technologies and initiatives; this may encourage more incentive for companies to set up and develop more resourceful means to use our materials in this nation.

      * The money collected from the tax should not be squandered and should be siphoned off to be spent on development of new energy production methods (I am not an engineer 😉 ). This is how the plan reads on one website:

      “The Government will establish a Clean Energy Finance Corporation (A$10 billion) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (A$3.2 billion) to invest funds in the commercialisation of renewable energy, along with investment in low-emission and energy efficiency technologies. In addition to the Government’s other industry assistance packages, this represents a significant opportunity for companies operating in clean and renewable energy industries to obtain government funding for their projects.”

      * As more low-emission and energy efficient technologies saturate the market and integrate in our lives, the affects of the tax on our lives will reduce as we will be producing less CO2 by using less electricity (theoretically).

      * Coal is finite and we need to move on to something else eventually.

      Sorry my points sort of got shorter and shorter there (I am very tired). I hope that is lucid enough and some points to consider/argue against.

      I think it will be measurable once we implement it and give it a shot. The best we can do now is look at reductions in similar nations with carbon taxes and see how their models work. We can always undo the scheme in the future with a new government if it really does not work out!

      Regards,
      Chabel Khan.

      • November 16, 2011 at 9:38 am #

        Please number your points in future! It makes them easier to respond to (and to rebutt). I will likewise number my points.

        I remain unconvinced. My concerns from your points are as follows:

        1) I respect the right of a govt of the day to make laws, because the people get what they vote for. BUT I still take umbridge when what is being implemented defies reason or good sense. I think voters are more irritated than usual because the minority government scenario is pushing policy in more extreme directions and many voters never voted for that (there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead).

        2) A “small” $23 tax is what makes or breaks investment in our economy. It doesn’t matter if Scandanavia does not have the tax… they do not compete with us for exports in carbon intensive industries. If Canada or South Africa, who DO complete with Australia in those markets, don’t have a tax, they will be rubbing their hands at our stupidity and welcoming investors who would have otherwised put money into Australia. I am happy if it has a defined quantifiable environmental benefit, but no, we are not certain by how much human beings are changing the climate, and much less what tiny Australia’s contribution will make when the cuts we make in five years will be outstripped by China in less than one. I tell you solemnly, the Chinese will not be “shamed” into environmental action by Australia’s symbolic sacrifice. They will laugh at us behind closed doors, while giving us a Cheshire cat smile. I say this as a Chinese person, not a sinophobe.

        “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” – Napoleon Boneparte

        3) My worry with the “Clean Energy Future” (queue another politically correct jingle) is that we are relying on government to pick a winner that nobody will want. We have cheap baseload power in either fossil fuel or nuclear (which the Greens have ruled out). We are essentially being asked to replace this cheap baseload power with something that hasn’t been invented yet, is less energy efficient but more expensive. I do not like fossil fuels, I am not in the pay of “big oil”. BUT leaping into the nether with a smaller parachute is my definition of imprudence. Not only that, the steering wheel of the ” development of new energy production methods” has been handed to the Greens… who will choose the most expensive, biggest, politically fashionable winners they can find. They’ve already ruled out nuclear power and, if memory serves, carbon capture technology.

        4) The “low-emission and energy efficient technologies… saturation” is built on a very false premise… that our energy needs remain static.

        They won’t.

        The more technologically advanced we become, the more energy intensive machines become… to move faster, we expend more energy. Our population is increasing, and each human being will consume more energy. We can take steps to reduce the energy intensity of products but ultimately, the graph is going up and up. That’s what’s wrong with that theory.

        5) I’m sure humanity will find a technological solution to our baseload energy needs, but it won’t be in Australia with its high taxes on innovation and poltically correct subculture. It won’t be Australia with the Greens funnelling $10B of tax payer money to politically fashionable pet projects that are technological dead ends. There are so many things that will be unlocked by high-yield energy, but we will not find it installing solar panels or windfarms.

        6) “…it will be measurable once we give it a shot.” Before you embark on a great project, you say, “what benefit will I derive from this? What profit?” We are spending billions to make the country less competitive without measurable or quantifiable benefit, we are buying a pie in the sky. It is like spending the country’s gold reserves on erecting a giant phallus… it is insanity.

  6. November 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    I have read your post, and I was writing out a response but I do not have time to finish it just now (heave to head off to an exam). I will come back and finish it later today, hopefully (if I do not get dragged off to have celebratory drinks after the exam).

    I am digging some of your counter-points though; dialectical discussion is great.

    Regards,
    Chabel Khan.

  7. November 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    Okay, firstly, be warned that as I write this I am drinking (it may be less lucid and coherent than usual).

    1. “I respect the right of a govt of the day to make laws, because the people get what they vote for.” Absolute agreement. That is how representative democracy works, and a coalition government is always difficult to navigate. However, this appeal to “good reason” is an interesting point. I do think there is a rationale to a carbon tax; I am not, however, promoting that I am in full agreement of the nuances of its implementation.

    Still, I maintain that:

    i) That a carbon tax is not that new of a concept.
    ii) Our carbon tax is small relative to our opulence to the rest of the world.
    ii) Consequentialist logic supports the view that it would be best to pay (in my opinion) a relative negligible amount of money to ensure that our immediate environmental conditions are preserved or not over exploited. Perhaps we could, at the very least, view it as trying to promote resourcefulness and increase the life of our ability to burn coal et cetera.

    2. “If Canada or South Africa, who DO complete with Australia in those markets, don’t have a tax, they will be rubbing their hands at our stupidity and welcoming investors who would have otherwised put money into Australia.”

    It is not really stupidity, in my opinion. It is just enticing a different type of investment. We are attempting to transition from high CO2 emitting industry, to industries that are supposedly going to reduce our need for coal which translates into us having the coal for longer.

    “I tell you solemnly, the Chinese will not be “shamed” into environmental action by Australia’s symbolic sacrifice.”

    I do not expect this to be the case; Australia is just proving to that it is dedicated to prolonging its available stockpiles of coal and that it wishes to reduce its emissions that may be affecting our health and environment negatively (I think that is a serious concern).

    Additionally, the Chinese economy is expected to shrink in annual growth from 10% to 8% because it has not used its imported natural resources effectively costing China more money. I think China in the next few years will be looking to resourceful technologies to utilise the imports they take form other nations in their industry. This may prove to be an untapped market that will open up to the Australian people if we attempt to get a head start in developing said technologies.

    3. “They’ve already ruled out nuclear power and, if memory serves, carbon capture technology.”

    I do not agree with that move. I am, however, hedging my bets that when we tax the private sectors/industry that they will be forced to siphon off some money on projects of more resourceful means to use our finite stockpile of natural resources. That may be seen as taking a gamble, but it seems a gamble that we will have to take some day as our natural resources dwindle. Why not induce the change now while we still have a means to produce energy and progress on new technologies? Adding the pressure by regulating the market might actually be conducive to new technologies and new types of investment. Comparing it to the current model is failing to make the transition to the paradigmatic stance of your opposition that transition to more resourceful use of natural resources is inevitable.

    4, “The more technologically advanced we become, the more energy intensive machines become…”

    This may be the case traditionally, but it may not be the case in the future. Furthermore, recognising that the energy consumption rate is not static, but dynamic, does not undermine the fact that working towards a model where technologies use less energy is a model that comparably uses less energy than a model which does not add these feature to technology. What I am saying is, okay, the technology may be more power hungry than the past, but it wont be as power hungry if implement the idea that technology should conserve energy.

    Treat the tax as a conservation of our finite domestic resources, not some environmental wonder cure.

    5. As previously stated, I do not necessarily support the funneling of funds into the fuel tanks of the Greens and their anti-nuclear and anti-carbon capture schemes (I was not aware this is what was proposed). I would, probably with your agreement, support that the money is invested to engineers and scientists to try and create means to conserve our natural resources, our future commodity.

    6. “We are spending billions to make the country less competitive…”

    As it stands now, but with the potential pay-off that it could lead to technologies meaning we have natural resources to sell to the rest of the world in the future when others have scarce amounts of resources. Additionally, it might lead to us selling technologies to China and big emitters so they can create more commodity out of the finite resources they have and import.

    Regards,
    Chabel Khan.

    • November 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

      I am enjoying this conversation and apologise in advance for the lengthy reply.

      1. iii) “a relative negligible amount of money to ensure that our immediate environmental conditions are preserved or not over exploited.” I am all for this, but not with a Carbon Tax. Protect our rivers from toxification, install scrubbers in smoke stacks to prevent the emission of soot (real carbon). Not on a tokenistic money grab that is being sold to us, in arrogance, in the belief it will change the weather.

      2. Okay, I see it this way. We move from racing in F1 to racing in a new league… go-karts. While selling lies to voters “oh you’ll keep your jobs in F1, they’ll transition to go-karts” and “oh don’t worry you’ll be compensated for us going slower until we decrease the speed limit again.” The compensation lasts only as long as is needed to make the tax unrepealable, after which point they will ramp up the “pain” to change behaviour. All for something that will not change the weather or environmental outcomes. The “clean” bit is all spin.

      I am all for innovation but why not, instead of a tax that destroys investment in one of Australia’s main competitive advantages (cheap, baseload fossil fuel energy) we just allocate money to research without destroying that competitive advantage. No need for a tax, just for the research – and even then we are seeing the Greens at the helm picking “their” winners. I agree with “induce the change now while we still have a means to produce energy and progress on new technologies” but don’t believe that hamstringing the country is a smart way to do it. Eventually as these fuels dwindle, natural price forces will force a shift from one source of baseload power to another. To artifically induce it now on an unquantifable but poltically correct premise is quite ludicrous.

      The tax itself is not to help the environment, it is there to return Labor to surplus.

      “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” – Winston Churchill

      2. “Australia is just proving to that it is dedicated to prolonging its available stockpiles of coal and that it wishes to reduce its emissions”

      … while selling that coal to China so they can emit it instead of us. Nice!

      We are not conserving the resources. We are selling it to others who would produce CO2 instead of us. And we are also sending them billions for pieces of paper that say “abatement.”

      “This may prove to be an untapped market that will open up to the Australian people if we attempt to get a head start in developing said technologies.”

      As an amusing aside, Zhengrong Zhi, founder of Suntech Power (one of the biggest Solar panel producers in the world and a very rich man, worth US$2.9 in March 2008) , came to Australia, finished uni, but found Australia’s manufacturing and R&D too restrictive. So he went to China and made a fortune, without any Australian grants or government money.

      Somehow I don’t think the next leap in innovation will come from Australia, not with the Greens picking the winners and not with the straightjacket that exists on innovation in Australian culture.

      “when we tax the private sectors/industry that they will be forced to siphon off some money… Adding the pressure by regulating the market might actually be conducive to new technologies and new types of investment.”

      Yes, they will siphon off money.

      They will siphon off money to developing deposits, smelting and refining capacity in OTHER countries, that do not have a Carbon Tax. Example in point in Julia Gillard’s electorate:
      http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/chemical-company-in-pm-julia-gillards-electorate-to-shelve-a-1-billion-expansion-because-of-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226187047963

      My pessimistic prediction is that, while Austrlia moves to flagellate itself, the price pressures won’t result in innovation. It will result in moving energy intensive industries away from Australia instead to pollute elsewhere. We are effectively encouraging global companies to pollute in other countries instead, over a policy whose effect on the environment (CO2 emission) we cannot quantifiably measure.

      4. “it may not be the case in the future.”
      Mathematically this statement in based on fantasy.

      To move faster, to think faster, we have to expend exponentially more energy. Efficiencies can be gained but, similar to cutting costs, “we cannot cut all costs.” Ultimately certain efficiencies can be gained, but the more “work” we want to achieve (think flying cars) then the more energy we must expend, exponentially (already the emissions from one jet engine in one flight is for one car for a whole year, if they were to travel the same distance).

      Our only hope would be to find a cheap, plentiful baseload power source that does not involve emitting carbon dioxide. Nuclear power of all three kinds is the best bet, or maybe SBSP through an orbital elevator, one day.

      5. “I would, probably with your agreement, support that the money is invested to engineers and scientists to try and create means to conserve our natural resources, our future commodity.”

      I am concerned that picking a winner in terms of technology is the same as picking out numbers in a lottery. One would have to buy a lot of lottery tickets to find one winner and, without that holy grail, it will be seen as wasted money searching for that grail that may not exist, especially with the Greens saying “the grail is not thataway!”. That’s the problem with “potential” pay off. It may not pay off, especially if another nation’s scientists or a scientist in the private sector gets there first.

      6. I see you are full of hope and idealism as to the future. I think the sacrifice we will make, at the behest of Labor, is much, much larger than a “small” tax. All to gamble on something that “might” happen. I don’t think that’s good policy, do you?

  8. Dylan Nyein
    October 30, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Well… the carbon tax has been in play since the 1st of June… and nothing has really changed with this tax. All of the scares and misguides thatthe LIBERAL party has done on this has been proven false. I can barely notice this “tax”… maybe you guys should actually know what you are talking about before you say anything. But if you want to led in the direction of lies, greed and power hungry bastards… then you should vote for the Liberal party (coalition or whatever the f*** you want to call them) but if you want something actually done and to be happy… then vote labour… seriously 😐

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: