P-man

We do agree on something after all

I badly wanted to get Crossy here and he certainly hasn't failed to deliver. Haven't met him but would like to, just to thank him for coming to our club.

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys. Links below. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change- http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Agreed. It's a two sided coin. That said, Dawes and Cross don't feel like ring ins to me anymore. They feel like Demons players, which is a credit to both of them.

This is where you and I clearly differ. In my job and in life as a general rule, I pay most attention to the opinions of experts. What I don't do is try to jump to conclusions based on data sets that I don't have the expertise to analyse. Whilst there may have been a less than expected rise in atmospheric temperature since 98 that skeptics have latched into with glee, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists still agree that climate change is occurring and must be acted upon, pointing to such evidence as the world's oceans heating at the rate of two trillion 100-watt light bulbs burning continuously, 2014 being the hottest year on record, the polar ice caps melting at six times the rate of the previous decade etc etc. Until the 97% are the ones saying that a hiatus is meaningful and debunks the idea of human induced climate change, I will continue to respect the opinions of those who know what they're talking about, and base my own views upon theirs.

The world is rapidly moving towards carbon pricing. China is establishing a national market for carbon permit trading in 2016 and has already launched seven regional pilot markets. The US is moving in the same direction. Much of Europe already has. We were well established for their introduction. Now we must start over because one idealistic plonk placed greater emphasis on his leadership ambitions than what was right for the environment and the country. The argument that we should do nothing because the big polluters are doing nothing has been made redundant. Further, the argument that we should do nothing because of our contribution to global emissions pays no attention to it being a global effort required to address a global issue, where the laggards will be rightly treated with distrust. As the largest emitter per capita in the world, we can't sit on the sidelines and expect no ramifications. Anyone who still clings to theories of plateaus and hiatuses in all their unscientific wisdom is welcome to sit alongside the likes of Andrew Bolt. I think most sane minded people will see 97% agreement as enough of a majority opinion to warrant action.

Congrats to Lynden Dunn. Much deserved and really a remarkable turnaround over the past 2 years. A good selection overall. Moderate size and Jones solo is the right call.

Some of those are valid. I didn't include delivering a surplus after their first year cause that's just a lofty objective and all incoming governments make them. Few deliver. Again, I don't deem policy failures to be broken promises. Broken promises are saying you will take an ACTION and doing the OPPOSITE of that ACTION. I don't wish to split hairs and I'm not saying Gillard is squeaky clean. Of course she isn't. Nor is Rudd. Nor is Howard. I think her downfall was attaching so much to the mining tax. But I do still think that's a lightweight list compared to Abbott's record of deceit that he's achieved in a mere 18 months.

Not hard to see why the guy won a Walkley - http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-pms-woes-started-earlier-than-you-think-20150129-130mcx.html

I'm in again, thanks DV. Dom Barrygnon FC are now The Chunky Tulips.

The lighting certainly doesn't do them too many favours, especially Watts. At least the jumper looks good. Less clutter makes a jumper look better. Who'd have thunk it?

Kudos for the increased detail in that response. Yes I really would like to see what you deem to be broken promises by Gillard. Not policy failures. Lies. If you can come up with a list that even remotely compares with Abbott, I'll tip my hat to you. It will take some creative thinking. You've got "no carbon tax under a government I lead". That's one. How does a mining tax affect Joe Bloggs living in Western Sydney with two kids and a mortgage? Compared with a $7 increase for every visit to the GP over 10 minutes? For that matter, how does removing a carbon tax affect Joe? Not what Abbott said was the effect. The ACTUAL effect. How much has Joe's electricity bill gone down in the past few months? How does "stopping the boats" impact Joe? If there is so much fear and concern about the flooding of our borders, the number of asylum seekers arriving by plane is 32 times that arriving by boat. When was the last time that rated a mention in one of Morrison's farcical press conferences? Abbott's reforms to health, education and basic way of living have real detrimental impact on the lower to middle class, and they are totally unnecessary. I can't be apathetic towards that. Shorten isn't the most inspiring of individuals, but he won't need to be if things continue as they are.

By all means, list the ones you see as broken promises. That is, saying you'll take one action and then doing the opposite. Let's compare your Gillard list with Abbott's, who is just half way through his first term. You've failed to address ANY of the ones I've listed. Not a single one. I have no idea if you agree they're all lies to be condemned because you won't talk about them. You won't talk about the carbon tax because you probably know nothing of it except that Gillard said she wouldn't introduce one. You then take the absurd position that Abbott is to be praised for delivering on his "core promises". Just because you tack a three word slogan onto something so fools can easily digest it doesn't make it any more important than saying you won't slash the health budget, funding to schools, or introduce new taxes. Those are pretty big deals. Much bigger than saying you'll scrap a mining tax. I think it's plainly evident which one of us has the bigger political prejudice. I've voted for the Coaliton before. Have you ever voted Labor? Let me take a wild stab and guess, no. Ffs, you actually want to let these clowns stick around for "consecutive adult governments". ADULT governments. Honestly. Jesus wept.

What, that I believe only Abbott's lies are bad? I've rejected that outright. How can I make it any clearer to you? I assess every broken promise on its merits. I don't care who says them. Doing a blanket sweep and paying no attention to circumstance is stupid and ignorant. But even if for argument's sake we accept all are equally corrupt, Gillard broke one pledge. Abbot has broken at least a dozen. At least. But you continue to only acknowledge cuts to the ABC.

Yes, I do see shades of grey in most things. Not everything is black and white. Not all of Abbott's lies are equally bad. In terms of scale and impact, Gillard's "no carbon tax" pledge was a [censored] in the wind. You are however welcome to believe all lies are as bad each other.

Nonsense. I judge each one on its merits. I've pointed out to you the context around "no carbon tax", none of which you've disputed.

And what of the raft of other broken promises? That's not even a complete list of them. Name me another government that has deceived the voting public more than this one. If you read my post, I'm not disputing it was a carbon tax. It is however laughable the frenzy whipped up over it considering the level of deception from this government. I'm not anti-Liberal. I voted for Howard when I thought they were the best option. I am very anti-Abbott and anti-the current government. Removing Abbott, as diabolical as he is, is not going to be a magical bandaid. ABC is far and away the best FTA channel amongst the other mindless dross. Privatise the ABC and you essentially kill it. But that'd be alright. No more of that lefty nonsense amirite? Less of that hippy climate change dribble.

Acknowledging BB's excellent post on Neeta, I'd be happy to have just Chunk and Tulip either side of big Jim. The two players who have kept us going during the club's darkest days. Chunk and Tulip. Chunky Tulip. I think I just found my new Supercoach name.

It was carbon tax, and I've explained in my earlier post why the significance of that was drastically overstated. Most people wouldn't have the faintest idea about the difference between the operation of an ETS and a carbon tax, but they were told repeatedly they should be outraged over it. Gillard always said the policy was to put a price on carbon. She didn't deliberately mislead on the issue. She had to have a fixed price (tax) due to an election result that few would have predicted. Her hand was forced, and the difference in impact to consumers was negligible to nil. The plan was always to move to an ETS and that never changed. It was simply delayed. But if you wish to label it a lie, so be it. It was one lie. Abbott is clocking up broken promises for fun, and it's hard to argue that a number of these weren't pre-meditated: - broke promise on Gonski to commit future funding and require States to match Commonwealth funding - "no cuts to education" - cuts funding for trade training centres in schools - "no cuts to health" - cuts funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council; cuts $150 million from hospitals and health services; cuts to preventative health; reduces the medicare benefit for optometry services and allows optometrists to charge more; axes the Charles Sturt University’s dental and oral health clinics; abolishes medicare locals - broke promise to provide fibre-to-the-premises for all Tasmanians for the NBN - “no cuts to the ABC or SBS" - cuts $43.5 million from the ABC and SBS - "no new taxes" - deficit tax rise of two percentage points for people earning more than $180,000 a year; fuel levy; $900 tax on new homes connecting to the NBN; medicare "optional co-payment" (tax) - sacking of 16,500 public sector workers despite promising only 12,000 job losses and through natural attrition - reduction in foreign aid budget of $7.9 billion over five years despite promise to not exceed $4.5 billion and cut via indexation - "no changes to pensions" - increases the pension age to 70 from 2035; cuts to old age pension by indexing to CPI - “no unexpected detrimental changes to superannuation” - axes Low Income Super Contribution, the Superannuation Guarantee and delays superannuation increases for seven years. But yeah, Gillard was way worse.

That wasn't my intention. Certainly it was a mismanaged program, but it's within the context that Hood pointed out. It also seems to be the number one go-to option when talking policy failures, along with the dreaded carbon tax *dun dun dunnnnn*

I think that's mostly fair, but Gillard did manage to pass 500 pieces of legislation in a minority government, which is nothing to sneeze at. Legacies would include: - steering through the GFC (not to be dismissed) - dismantling WorkChoices and establishing Fair Work Australia - disability care - education reform - reforming secondary and expanding tertiary - improving the pay of low-paid workers - removing over 80 forms of discrimination against same-sex couples - Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse - Murray River water management reform Contestable would be the instituting of the carbon price, which was a major reform that they did achieve despite Abbott tearing it down. For whatever Abbott has attempted to dismantle, Labor established agencies such as ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to mobilise capital investment in renewable energy, low-emission technologies and energy efficiency. Despite having their funding slashed and massive investment uncertainty now prevalent, they are still kicking around. The stolen generation apology is also contentious as some would argue it was a Rudd ego exercise, but it was still noteable. My interest isn't in being a Labor apologist. I do maintain that Abbott is, already, the worst Prime Minister we've ever had or are likely to have.

Okay, so the usual candidates. Of course the four lives lost is a tragedy, but the issue became disgustingly politicised imo. Tragic as they were, their deaths were quite shamelessly used as political fodder. I accept that Abbott devotees have a perverse obsession with "stopping the boats" and that topic has been done to death. I will continue to call [censored] on the humanitarian grounds for support. They are plainly fear grounds for the most part. I'll also accept that the arrivals have stopped when there is full disclosure. Whilst we remain in the dark, so do the proclamations of "mission accomplished". It's also worth noting that the Libs conveniently took all the credit for a PNG arrangement that Labor put in place prior to the election. "No carbon tax" pledge was flogged to death by Alan Jones to his singled celled listeners, when it was largely inconsequential. Gillard couldn't negotiate her model so a transitionary measure was put in place. It was still a price on carbon, with a plan to move to a market based scheme. Now the taxpayers who protested its existence because they were convinced it was the root of all evil are the ones coughing up the billions of dollars to fund climate action, instead of big business who are the ones doing the emitting. Cause that makes a whole heap of sense, said no expert ever. Blaming them for Peter Slipper's actions barely deserves acknowledgement. Similarly, to be critical of the stimulus package that kept our heads above water, a package that was praised worldwide by leading economists, is equally narrow minded. For all the bluster over supposedly damaged relations with China, the largest contract ever signed between China and Australia was engineered in the midst of it with the $50 billion ExxonMobil LNG deal in 2009. That's how damaged relations were. Aside from that a couple of piddly schemes that didn't perform as hoped. I will agree with Grape on the mining tax which was a total [censored] up by Gillard. She got all the big boys in the room to negotiate, and with their free ride it turned into a wasted venture. The Citizens Council was also a farce and waste of time. Don't know how much it cost. Hopefully not a lot. Questions over the live cattle export ban were legitimate. But really, when you look at that list, it doesn't match the claims of "omg worst government eva". Let's take a snapshot of the current mob.. We currently face a 6.2% unemployment rate and a budget situation that continues to worsen because of decisions like a $9 billion injection to the RBA that no economist thought was necessary, coupled with half arsed jobs at cobbling together policies with an often total absence of consultation, and then arrogantly trying to force through the Senate what are essentially BAD ideas. Even Howard was able to negotiate his legislation through a hostile Senate . As for cost benefit analyses, let's talk about the Coalition promise that any project worth more than $100 million would be subject to a cost benefit analysis before it was funded and that the "roads of the 21st century" would be under construction within 12 months. Neither have happened. Add them to the list of broken promises. And what a list it is. Not just lies by technical definition. Flat out, bold faced lies. What's the tally up to now? Is it 9 or 10? Let's not even get into the Medicare fiasco. I haven't even scratched the surface of the list of failures (I'd be here all night). Yet somehow, you can justify in your mind that Rudd and Gillard were worse. Look. It's okay to have regrets about voting for Abbott. Seriously major regrets. "What the actual [censored] was I thinking?" type of regrets.

What was so bad and toxic about the previous government? I mean specifically, in which policy areas did you think they failed? Please don't say pink batts.. The internal disorder and leadership spills clearly cost them badly, but unless you believe the codswallop about a budget crisis in a country with one of the lowest debt levels in the world, or the carbon price (which has simply been delayed) being an economic wrecking ball, I can't see how they could be deemed such a disaster. Putting aside any social reforms, they ultimately steered Australia though a global financial crisis to emerge one of a small handful of countries in the OECD not to experience negative growth. That alone is a fair achievement, isn't it? As for placing Scott Morrison and "adult government" in the same sentence, I'll assume that's a typo.

steve - skills wise I agree, but running ability alone isn't what will keep Bail in the side. Ranked 3rd last season for tackles per game, behind those two layabouts Jones and Cross. Most don't have him in their best 22 (myself included), but whilst he is setting that type of standard, he will take some moving.

Yeah I would've backed Costello to win in 2010 if he had stuck around, and I think he may have fared okay. Certainly he would've been miles better than the current peanut. At least Costello had a well thought out position when it came to less government, lower taxes etc. But he only has himself to blame, just like he only has himself to blame for not having the grapes to challenge little Johnny. He claims he didn't have the numbers, but he'll never know for sure.