I'm really annoyed by the Coalitions constant "Labor must seek a mandate for their Carbon Tax" nonsense. John Howard never sought a mandate for WorkChoices. He spent millions on advertising for it before taking it to an election. But before the 2004 election, there was nothing, not even a whisper, of anything even vaguely resembling WorkChoices. It was completely out of the blue. Probably only concocted by the Coalition having majorities in both houses of parliament.
Contrast WorkChoices with the Carbon Tax. Labor announced before the election that they would have some kind of committee to work out a good policy for tackling climate change. The details of that committee changed after the election as Labor negociated (sic) to form government. But after forming government, Labor quite clearly announced that there would be a multi-party committee to work out a climate change policy. The result of this committee was to have an ETS, which was Labor policy well before 2007, eased into by a tax. The Carbon Tax is nothing more than an interim as Australia moves to a market-based mechanism.
So, I can quite clearly say that Labor announcing that they finally have a climate change policy and intend to implement it, is far less out of the blue than John Howard forcing WorkChoices down our throats. Anyone who believes that Julia Gillard should call an early election over the Carbon Tax should be absolutely fuming at John Howard for not calling an early election over WorkChoices.
Moreover, John Howard promised in 1996 that GST would never be part of his policy. That it was "dead and buried". He did decide that "dead and buried" meant "current Liberal policy", and decided to implement a GST. To his credit, he did take it to an election to seek a mandate. A mandate he thoroughly lost when Labor won 51% of the vote. Howard faced a 4.61% swing against him - nearly twice the swing against Labor at last year’s federal election. Howard lost 14 seats (Labor lost 11 in 2010), Labor gained 18 seats (the Coalition only gained 7 in 2010). Indeed, 1998 was a bigger swing against John Howard's government than 2010 was against Julia Gillard's government in every measurable way. The only difference is that Howard was lucky enough to form government.
If Howard had put the GST to a referendum, it would have lost. The fact that he lost the popular vote, quite substantially all things considered, means he really did have no real mandate for the GST.
The Coalition are nothing short of despicable for demanding Labor seek a mandate for finally having a policy on climate change and having to negociate (sic) that policy with those holding the balance of power in both houses.
Labor will ultimately win the climate change debate, for two reasons:
1. Climate change is real. They acknowledge this and actively seek to do something about it rather than actively seek to make wealthy businesses wealthier.
2. The Carbon Tax is a positive policy. Labor is trying to do something because they believe it is the right thing to do. Nobody gains directly from action on climate change (except for, you know, everybody). It isn't a policy to make better off certain groups of people. It is a policy because it is the right thing to do.
Whatever your feelings towards action on climate change, Labor believe it is happening, and they believe they are doing something for the benefit of all humanity, even if it may inconvenience us now. You may not believe they are doing the right thing, but you have to acknowledge that they do. It is very rare for politicians to try and do what they believe is the right thing even though it may make them unpopular. As Labor begin to sell the Carbon Tax more over the next two years, people will see that they are doing what they believe is right regardless of how popular it makes them, and people will have to give them credit for credibility even if they disagree.
2013 is a long way off. But Labor have for a long time sought to take action on climate change. They have a mandate because doing the right thing for all humanity does not need the approval of a voting majority of the Australian population.
Contrast WorkChoices with the Carbon Tax. Labor announced before the election that they would have some kind of committee to work out a good policy for tackling climate change. The details of that committee changed after the election as Labor negociated (sic) to form government. But after forming government, Labor quite clearly announced that there would be a multi-party committee to work out a climate change policy. The result of this committee was to have an ETS, which was Labor policy well before 2007, eased into by a tax. The Carbon Tax is nothing more than an interim as Australia moves to a market-based mechanism.
So, I can quite clearly say that Labor announcing that they finally have a climate change policy and intend to implement it, is far less out of the blue than John Howard forcing WorkChoices down our throats. Anyone who believes that Julia Gillard should call an early election over the Carbon Tax should be absolutely fuming at John Howard for not calling an early election over WorkChoices.
Moreover, John Howard promised in 1996 that GST would never be part of his policy. That it was "dead and buried". He did decide that "dead and buried" meant "current Liberal policy", and decided to implement a GST. To his credit, he did take it to an election to seek a mandate. A mandate he thoroughly lost when Labor won 51% of the vote. Howard faced a 4.61% swing against him - nearly twice the swing against Labor at last year’s federal election. Howard lost 14 seats (Labor lost 11 in 2010), Labor gained 18 seats (the Coalition only gained 7 in 2010). Indeed, 1998 was a bigger swing against John Howard's government than 2010 was against Julia Gillard's government in every measurable way. The only difference is that Howard was lucky enough to form government.
If Howard had put the GST to a referendum, it would have lost. The fact that he lost the popular vote, quite substantially all things considered, means he really did have no real mandate for the GST.
The Coalition are nothing short of despicable for demanding Labor seek a mandate for finally having a policy on climate change and having to negociate (sic) that policy with those holding the balance of power in both houses.
Labor will ultimately win the climate change debate, for two reasons:
1. Climate change is real. They acknowledge this and actively seek to do something about it rather than actively seek to make wealthy businesses wealthier.
2. The Carbon Tax is a positive policy. Labor is trying to do something because they believe it is the right thing to do. Nobody gains directly from action on climate change (except for, you know, everybody). It isn't a policy to make better off certain groups of people. It is a policy because it is the right thing to do.
Whatever your feelings towards action on climate change, Labor believe it is happening, and they believe they are doing something for the benefit of all humanity, even if it may inconvenience us now. You may not believe they are doing the right thing, but you have to acknowledge that they do. It is very rare for politicians to try and do what they believe is the right thing even though it may make them unpopular. As Labor begin to sell the Carbon Tax more over the next two years, people will see that they are doing what they believe is right regardless of how popular it makes them, and people will have to give them credit for credibility even if they disagree.
2013 is a long way off. But Labor have for a long time sought to take action on climate change. They have a mandate because doing the right thing for all humanity does not need the approval of a voting majority of the Australian population.
No comments:
Post a Comment