The Australian Election result

[Mr Pee]

I hope that Cameron and the Conservative party strategists have taken a close look at last week's Australian election result, which Tony Abbot won handsomely. He and his Liberal party did it on a platform of all the principles that our Conservative party, in a desperate attempt to be all things to all men, are discarding :- he is opposed to gay marriage, wishes to dramatically reduce immigration and foreign aid, and has dismissed man-made global warming as "crap", with a pledge to scrap or dramatically reduce so-called green taxation.

Meanwhile, back here in the UK, a poll reported in today's Sunday Times shows growing support for UKIP in Tory marginal seats at the expense of the Conservatives, sufficient to quite possibly cost them the next election, even with the useless Ed Milliband as Labour party leader.

Mr Cameron, please take note.

[amateur51]

Spookily, I was watching this last evening ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STkHUlZGrro

Tony Abbott-style politics? No thanks.

[ahinton]

I hope that Cameron and the Conservative party strategists have taken a close look at last week's Australian election result, which Tony Abbot won handsomely. He and his Liberal party did it on a platform of all the principles that our Conservative party, in a desperate attempt to be all things to all men, are discarding

So you wouldn't accuse that party of trying to be all things to all women (as distinct from "wimmin") as well, then?

he is opposed to gay marriage

Is he now? I wonder to what extent his view on this is endorsed by the Australian electorate and whether he's given any thought to the risk that his country might become sidelined as more and more other nations endorse it by law?

wishes to dramatically reduce immigration and foreign aid

So do you think that all countries ought to do the same? If so and were that actually to happen, I shudder to imagine the economic and other problems that this would cause, not to mention increasing international animosities...

and has dismissed man-made global warming as "crap", with a pledge to scrap or dramatically reduce so-called green taxation.

Would you regard that in his case as a mere personal opinion or the considered conclusions of a seasoned climatologist? Whilst it seems clear that naturally occurring climate change (not "global warming", please) is undeniable, the notion that man's activities have had no effect upon it at all is widely believed to be improbable - and not just by those of different political persuasions to your own, either. Given Australia's position as a classic case of a country that could invest profitably in solar energy - small population in terms of people per square metre, vast sunlit areas unsuitable for agriculture or human habitation and so on, Mr Abbot's stance seems even more embarrassing that it otherwise might.

Meanwhile, back here in the UK, a poll reported in today's Sunday Times shows growing support for UKIP in Tory marginal seats at the expense of the Conservatives, sufficient to quite possibly cost them the next election, even with the useless Ed Milliband as Labour party leader.

Mr Cameron, please take note.

Whilst I do not expect Mr Cameron to take note of anything much, if UKIP does indeed do better than it has ever done in previous General Elections (which wouldn't be difficult, given that they have no MPs in Parliament currently), all that this would likely do is further complicate the question of who would be obliged to decide to fall into bed with whom in order to form the next coalition.

[french frank]

and has dismissed man-made global warming as "crap"

Is all your source material that good, Mr Pee?

"He infamously declared in 2009 the science was "crap" but has since stated he accepts humans are contributing to global warming.

[...]


"[Senior Liberal] Senator Brandis put it this way: "What Mr Abbott said (on Monday) is completely consistent with the coalition's position ... that we accept that the consensus of the majority of scientific opinion is that climate change is a reality and human activity contributes to it"."

But that was in March 2011. Perhaps he changes his mind every two years?

[ahinton]

Is all your source material that good, Mr Pee?

"He infamously declared in 2009 the science was "crap" but has since stated he accepts humans are contributing to global warming.

[...]


"[Senior Liberal] Senator Brandis put it this way: "What Mr Abbott said (on Monday) is completely consistent with the coalition's position ... that we accept that the consensus of the majority of scientific opinion is that climate change is a reality and human activity contributes to it"."

But that was in March 2011. Perhaps he changes his mind every two years?

Well, he is a politician and, if a week is indeed a long time in politics, two years must be an eternity - ample time, at least, for as many changes of mind as might seem convenient (which said, Sorabji's remark about changing one's mind - namely "the great thing about changing one's mind is having a mind to change in the first place" - springs unbidden to - er - um - mind)...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

"He infamously declared in 2009 the science was "crap" but has since stated he accepts humans are contributing to global warming.

"[Senior Liberal] Senator Brandis put it this way: "What Mr Abbott said (on Monday) is completely consistent with the coalition's position ... that we accept that the consensus of the majority of scientific opinion is that climate change is a reality and human activity contributes to it"."

But that was in March 2011. Perhaps he changes his mind every two years?

I don't see any disconnection here.

Almost everyone accepts the obvious fact that the climate changes.

Almost everyone accepts the fact that human activity contributes to climate change since it's been know for over a hundred years that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse house.

Mr Abbott included.

But perhaps Mr Abbott has grasped the fact that the alarming predictions of global warming attributed to human activity might be somewhat 'crap' when they follow from climate models unable to forecast the present 17 year standstill in global temperatures? Especially when over that period we have seen steadily rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

And perhaps that also explains why the Czech Republic is in the same company as Australia (and many European countries) in dropping their climate policies?

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-326504/

[Mr Pee]

But perhaps Mr Abbott has grasped the fact that the alarming predictions of global warming attributed to human activity might be somewhat 'crap' when they follow from climate models unable to forecast the present 17 year standstill in global temperatures? Especially when over that period we have seen steadily rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

And perhaps that also explains why the Czech Republic is in the same company as Australia (and many European countries) in dropping their climate policies?

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-h...9/SS-2-326504/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

[An_Inspector_Calls]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html?mod=wsj_streaming_stream

!!

[french frank]

I don't see any disconnection here.
[...]
Almost everyone accepts the fact that human activity contributes to climate change since it's been know for over a hundred years that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse house.

Mr Abbott included.

Well, Mr Abbott not included, I suppose, if you accept (as I did) what Mr Pee wrote that he "dismissed man-made global warming as "crap"." If Mr Pee had written in the bit about him, of course, accepting that 'human activity' contributed (but perhaps he really meant woman-made, as distinct from man-made?), I wouldn't have taken the trouble to check what he had said.

I do rather like the idea of woman-made global warming. Eve as the source of all evil.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

That would be Sheila warming, but apparently in #4 you'd had him as 'accepts humans are contributing to global warming'.

[ahinton]

All this global warmin's down to wimmin, I tells ya! Global wimmin, that's wot! And just think of all the increases in greenhouse gas emissions that are the direct consequence of gay marriages! It's a disgrace, I tells ya! AN' as for all them immigrants, well, Australia's such a tiny and heavily populated country that there just ain't no room for 'em, doncha see?

Good grief!

Western Australia seems to be the best place for this new premier; Abbott WA, if you gets me drift...

[french frank]

That would be Sheila warming, but apparently in #4 you'd had him as 'accepts humans are contributing to global warming'.

But, according to Mr Pee's version, not "man-made". I think that only leaves one possibility, since cows are not human. Women!

[jean]

I don't think the vote for the Liberal party had much to do with their policies.

The Australian voters were just thoroughly fed up with the infighting and hideous misogyny of Labour:

http://www.psa.ac.uk/political-insight/blog/hypocrisy-plotting-and-misogyny-explaining-brutal-nature-australian-party

[scottycelt]

I don't think the vote for the Liberal party had much to do with their policies.

The Australian voters were just thoroughly fed up with the infighting and hideous misogyny of Labour:

http://www.psa.ac.uk/political-insig...stralian-party

How come then did that truly, truly awful Ms Gillard ever became leader of the Labour Party ... ? Illogical!

The Australian people have spoken, and spoken with great clarity It's called democracy. Voting in Australia is compulsory. There can be no argument about the decisiveness of the result.

If nothing else it's somewhat reassuring to know that it's the Aussies and Russians who decide the next stage of their own countries political and social direction and not ahinton? :winkeye:

[amateur51]

How come then did that truly, truly awful Ms Gillard ever became leader of the Labour Party ... ? Illogical!

The Australian people have spoken, and spoken with great clarity It's called democracy. Voting in Australia is compulsory. There can be no argument about the decisiveness of the result.

If nothing else it's somewhat reassuring to know that it's the Aussies and Russians who decide the next stage of their own countries political and social direction and not ahinton? :winkeye:

When did you meet 'that truly, truly awful Ms Gillard' then scotty? On what do you base that description?

I just hope I'm not disappointed to find it's just another scotty trauma moment at the idea of a powerful woman