Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Is This Hoax Finally being exposed??? Will this stop them? Or will it make them Mad??? Liars , Frauds, cheats, and phonies, Deciding Whats best for You and I….

Esta caricatura  meu amigo kbça  quem fez de minha pessoa.

Revoltado ! Só por que fiz a dele..rsrrsr.

Não parece muito comigo.

È brincadeira. Identico.

WeAreChange Western Australia

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr251109.pdf

During yesterday’s sitting of the House of Representatives, Labor frontbencher Mr. Greg Combet, whose portfolio ranges from Defence to Climate Change, was asked a “Dorothy Dixer” question from fellow party member Mr. Raguse regarding the following:

Mr. Raguse: My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Will the minister outline what arguments have been raised against taking action on climate change?

The Ex-ACTU head Combet responded as follows:

Mr. Combet: Firstly, I think it is important to acknowledge those in the coalition who are supportive of action on climate change, because it is very important for the Australian economy and for our contribution to the battle against climate change and to achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, as has been fairly evident over the last 24 to 48 hours, there are some fairly deep divisions on the other side of politics. We have seen some quite extraordinary scenes, including a struggle for leadership of the Liberal Party over this issue. It is important in this context that we consider some of the arguments that have been mounted against taking action on climate change and that we are clear about what some of these arguments actually involve.

We have heard the argument that this might be some left-wing conspiracy—that the international climate scientists have been engaged in some form of conspiracy that will take us down some left-wing governance path. But an argument has also been advanced, by Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, that the international negotiations are in fact a conspiracy to establish world government. Lord Monckton has argued that a new global treaty on climate change would effectively mean that nation-states sign away their sovereignty to a new, United Nations world government. This has been seriously posited. Lord Monckton has argued that the aim is for the UN to have the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the global agreement. Lord Monckton, only about a month or so ago, I think it was, gave the following warning to American citizens:

… in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president
will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity
away forever.

So Lord Monckton is positing a fairly serious conspiracy theory. This is a theory that climate change is a plot to destroy national sovereignty and to establish world government. That is essentially his argument.

During the second reading debate on the CPRS legislation, there have been a few observations about this, and I will just briefly refer to a couple of the issues that have been raised. One contributor indicated that the draft treaty ‘effectively gives complete power over the Australian economy to a committee of unelected UN carbon regulators’. Another contributor in the Senate had this to say:

In cyber Australia right now there is a growing groundswell of disaffected people. I think probably up to a million people have been listening to Lord Monckton …

One other contribution was:

… the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a sort of transnational government on a scale the world has never seen.

Let us just have a look at this contention. What this is seriously arguing is that the majority of world leaders—people such as President Barack Obama; Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany; and Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, amongst others—are in some form of international conspiracy to cede their national sovereignty and establish world government, presumably under the guidance of the UN, and that the vehicle for this great goal is the international negotiations for a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! This is the most bizarre, absurd, ridiculous contention that one could imagine being posited in this debate, and yet it gets an airing.

After five weeks of negotiations in good faith, the government yesterday put to the coalition a deal on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and the Leader of the Opposition last night indicated that in his view it is good for jobs and it is good for the environment. The member for Groom, with whom of course Senator Wong and I have had considerable dealings in these negotiations, described the package as an exceptional package. It is a deal that the Business Council of Australia, the Aluminium Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Council of Social Service and many environment groups are supporting, and they are calling for its passage through the Senate.

No major modern political party can be held captive by climate change sceptics and conspiracy theorists if it is to retain credibility. It is extremely important for this country that this week we get beyond these issues and ensure the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through parliament. We need it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need it for the national interest and we need it to play a constructive role in international negotiations that will be about combating climate change, not about establishing some new, world government.

UPDATE: View this 3m56s snippet of the above speech on YouTube:

25 November 2009 – Greg Combet’s remarks to the House of Representatives

WeAreChangeWA views this parliamentary statement as blatant & blanket denial and/or ignorance to the facts – some self-evidently pressing – surrounding the manmade global warming/climate change issue and the stated objectives by World leaders for the Copenhagen Summit being held in December, by a representative who should know far better.

The first issue that Mr. Combet should be well aware of, is the recent disclosure – allegedly by an “internet hacker” – of internal communications between scientists within the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. Read the e-mails in full here. The leak, which was first picked up by mainstream press on the 20th of November, 2009, details collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. To suggest Mr. Combet, in his position of Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, would be ignorant to this revelation – picked up by the Government-funded ABC – is to envisage incompetence and ignorance well beyond, or below, that expected of our supposed elected representatives.

Lets go back over the Combet statement in Parliament:

We have heard the argument that this might be some left-wing conspiracy—that the international climate scientists have been engaged in some form of conspiracy that will take us down some left-wing governance path.

At the time of making this statement, the “argument” that international climate scientists have been engaged in some form of conspiracy has not become argument at all, it had become a reality, one that even the mainstream media and “our ABC,” could not ignore. James Delingpole, writing for The Telegraph, has not been alone in suggesting the Copenhagen Summit is a step closer to One World Government, and also covered “climategate.” Along with The Australian’s Andrew Bolt, former writer for the ABC, who said it could be the “greatest scandal in modern science,” in one of many recent articles he’s posted regarding the doubts about manmade global warming. WeAreChangeWA questions how Mr. Combet could be ignorant of “climategate,” and if he is not, he and his party need to urgently address it. As it’s surely in the national interest to do so.

The second major contention WeAreChangeWA has with Mr. Greg Combet’s remarks is the damnation he pours over those who raise the issue of the Copenhagen Summit bringing us closer towards World Government. This blanket damnation includes parliamentarians, along with Lord Christopher Monckton. Direct quote:

During the second reading debate on the CPRS legislation, there have been a few observations about this, and I will just briefly refer to a couple of the issues that have been raised. One contributor indicated that the draft treaty ‘effectively gives complete power over the Australian economy to a committee of unelected UN carbon regulators’. Another contributor in the Senate had this to say:

In cyber Australia right now there is a growing groundswell of disaffected people. I think probably up to a million people have been listening to Lord Monckton …

One other contribution was:

… the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a sort of transnational government on a scale the world has never seen.

Let us just have a look at this contention. What this is seriously arguing is that the majority of world leaders—people such as President Barack Obama; Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany; and Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, amongst others—are in some form of international conspiracy to cede their national sovereignty and establish world government, presumably under the guidance of the UN, and that the vehicle for this great goal is the international negotiations for a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! This is the most bizarre, absurd, ridiculous contention that one could imagine being posited in this debate, and yet it gets an airing.

It is hard to believe that Mr. Greg Combet, in his position of Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, is that unaware of the benchmarks for success for the Copenhagen Treaty, as stated by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, in the New York Times on the 25th of October this year:

Looking forward to Copenhagen, I have four benchmarks for success:

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources…

A successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate…

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it…

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.

Aside from these statements by Ban Ki-Moon as a New York Times Op-Ed, we can look through the Draft Copenhagen Treaty as it currently stands, for clear evidence of Global Government being a part of the negotiations.

Getting back to the previously quoted Combet comments, the possibility of World Government being formed is far from “the most bizarre, absurd, ridiculous contention that one could imagine being posited in this debate,” it’s actually what the Secretary General of the United Nations is measuring its success by! Along with mainstream media journalists reporting on the fact. And furthermore, when it comes to what one could imagine, are we to imagine Mr. Greg Combet is unaware of all of this? Is he that incompetent, that ignorant..?

2009, the first year of Global Governance – as announced by the recently appointed President of the European Union (who said in the same speech, “The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet) – is shaping as the year in history when politicians and society alike tie their flag to the mast. The self-evident Globalisation of last century and overdrive of it in this century, has been not a natural evolution but a direct push to centralise globally, the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations. Now the people who have helped bring the World to this point, are looking to legally bind otherwise sovereign nations to Global hegemony.

This is not a conspiracy theory, as Mr. Greg Combet in his position as a representative, puts it. It is a well-established mainstream reality, which has already been canvassed as possible by many in Government & media circles World-wide.  A political reality, which we’d all like to know more about.

The transcript from the November 25, 2009 sitting of the House of Representatives can be viewed here. (Combet’s statement is on pages 65-66 of the PDF)

The audio of Question Time from the House of Representatives can be listened to here. (Combet’s question starts at the 16m25s mark)

“In cyber Australia right now there is a growing groundswell of disaffected people. Probably up to a million people have been listening to Lord Monckton.” If you’re one of those people who have been listening to Lord Monckton or who have heard about “climategate” or the stated UN General Secretary measure for success of “global governance,” please say what you think on our Forums.

Please give your thoughts on Combet’s comments here.

And please be present and say what you think at the Walk Against Warming on December 12th. Direct discussion for that specific event here.

I commented earlier in the week that there had been reports of emails that had been hacked from a leading Climate Change Research organisation who rely on funding from the UN. I managed to download these large group of emails and found the following disturbing email from a Scientist Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth who is the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below> freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change> planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin

Now I am not very smart but shouldn’t an objective Scientist researching Global warming be happy there is no sign of it and be shouting it from the roof tops or am I missing something ?

I will keep looking through these mails to see what other tit bits I can find.

Is that the way it is ??

Firstly I would like to say well done to the following people who last night resigned  from the Turnbull frontbench. 

Tony Abbott opposition families, housing, community services and indigenous affairs portfolio.
Nick Minchin – Leader of the opposition in the Senate.
Sophie Mirabella – early childhood education, childcare, women and youth portfolio.
Stephen Parry – Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate.
Eric Abetz – Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
Michael Johnson – Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives.
Tony Smith – Opposition assistant treasurer. Mathias Cormann – Opposition parliamentary secretary
Mitch Fifield – Opposition parliamentary secretary Brett Mason – Opposition parliamentary secretary

They may just about have saved the day with this ETS. Time will tell. With a meeting arranged for 9:00 Am Monday morning all will be revealed. However I believe unless Tony Abbott is made leader there still is a chance the ETS will survive.  Joe Hockey is a good man but he believes in the ETS. Keep up your emails and calls to your members of parlament particularly the Liberal sentors that are due to vote in the next couple of days. To make it easy here are the details of all Liberal senators. Get twittering, emailing or calling.

Oh poor Malcolm. I pity the bastard.

Leader of the Federal Coalition and target practice for all its members is poor old Malcolm Turnbull. The guy that’s possibly too descent to be in charge of such a joke of a party.

I admit, I like the guy. I really do. He’s a moderate, his heart is in the right place, and he’s a Republican- which for me puts him miles above most of the Coalition.

Despite being a rich businessman, I honestly beleive he’s in the wrong party.

He’s one of those nice-guys that pops up in Coalition history, only to be shot down and have his legacy trampled over by the party elite. Malcolm Fraser was one. Hell, even Brendan Nelson was one.

This breed of Liberal never has the power to hold together a party of hard-nuts that are just the mouthpieces of lobby groups.

What they need is an insufferably unlikeable leader.

Like John Howard, Tony Abbott, Peter Costello, or Alexander Downer. Cold hearted pricks that do nothing but block anything worthwhile because it might go against the status quo.

They need people like these to lead the party lobby-group faithful, like Wilson Tuckey, Nick Minchin, and lately, Andrew Robb.

I dislike all these people. on the side, I also despise the Nationals. Bunch of rednecks they are. The Nationals are an archaic, dying breed. That’s what happens when you represent the rural areas in an increasingly urban nation. I wont miss them. But before they go they seem intent on holding back any form of political progress on the matter of the environment. -As shown by the declaration that ‘no National would vote for an ETS’.

What an alliance. A Liberal Party that likes to kill its own, and a National Party that doesn’t listen to the party its subordinate to.

But yes. So Malcolm could be out the door. I find this odd seeing as how he actually gave in to many of the demands of the more devoted among the party to the right, and demanded the government water down its ETS so much that its almost useless. But apparently that’s not good enough. They don’t want any form of ETS at all, and even if there is one introduced, they want it brought in after Copenhagen.

I find this laughable. Much like Kyoto, any agreement laid down in Copenhagen could well be a ticket with which for Australian to gain entrance (and credibility) into any future environmental or emissions trading agreements for the future. However according to the rebellious among the Coalitions ranks, like Abbott, its not within the nations interest to have an ETS before we go to Copenhagen.

According to Abbott, its more within Australia’s interest to sit around on our hands while the world goes ahead and does something (although, Copenhagen is increasingly looking like its going to be sunk before its even gotten anywhere) and it would just be a personal victory for Kevin Rudd to waltz into Copenhagen with an ETS at home under his belt.

Hello, reality check.

How the hell does Abbott and his unfaithful peers think that its not within the national interest? From what I’ve seen and read (I read the Age and the Australian newspapers) its well within the nations interest to have a more powerful ETS here, not a watered down one, or a complete absence of one.

It also appears that a vast majority of the Australian public want an ETS. Watered down or not, most Australians want one.

The ALP wants one. (Which won government.) The Greens want one. (Albeit a far more powerful one.) And quite a few members of the Liberal Party want one. So where does Abbott get the idea that its not within the national interest to introduce an ETS?

Admittedly, both sides of the disagreement within the Liberal Party claim to have the publics support, and unless they’re both watching the opinion polls (which are really not so good btw) only an election would really reveal who’s in the right. So I guess we just sit back and watch the Liberal Party tear itself apart.

I’ll admit, I find this amusing.

They’re so up themselves and eager for power that they effectively need an Emperor to tell them what to do. (Sorry Joe Hockey, you guys really do need one.)

So if they kick Malcolm out, what next?

So the most obvious contenders are the likes of Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop or even Kevin Andrews.

Heres my rundown on them. I’ll add some later when I find the list I found in the Age.

Tony Abbott; This guy would bring down the party with a hell of a bang. He’s more unpopular than Peter Costello, and he doesn’t have any redeeming features like being a good treasurer. So yeah, good luck mate. Maybe you’d get the Catholic vote, but thats it.

Abbott after inserting his dagger firmly into Turnbulls back.

Joe Hockey; I predict another Nelson Turnbull. This guy is far too descent. He’s a moderate, so honestly, they’d eat him alive.

I admit, I love this guy. But he wouldn't last.

Julie Bishop; I think not. She acts like the Thatchet but she really comes across as useless.

I can't think of anything witty to say. I have no problem with her really. She's just not a strong figure. Although, she kinda is. But not in the 'people like me' way.

Kevin Andrews; HELL no. This guy has so much baggage I’m amazed he’s still around. Haneef, Somali immigration, immigration in general, this guy is a monster. He also looks like an evil Mr. Bean.

COuld he be more creepy?

Of the rest? Well, in general I’d say that they truly are an honorable bunch.  They’re all so good with their daggers. Doesn’t matter whos in charge next, they’ll be floating face down in no time.

And one last thing; Wilson Tuckey.

He’s a joke, and he could never be leader. Why? Well, because he has no friends. He’s like John McCain in that he’s a ‘maverick’ and kicks up trouble. But he does it over nothing productive and never gets anywhere. Claire Hoopers comparison was great. He’s like the Uncle Fester of the Liberal Party. Except thats mean, because Uncle Festers lightbulb comes on every now and then. This man exists to be a pain in the ass. So bugger off, you Western Australian sandgroper. You’re a peice of work, thats for sure.- Even for a Liberal.

He's always looking so smug. Maybe its because he gets to say so many redneck comments and still gets away with it.

So, before I asked if Andrews could look more creepy.

Gotta have great hair to be evil.

Yes, yes he can.

SO, in conclusion.

Malcolm Turnbull, I salute you. For having the balls to tell this lot to bugger off. You’re right. You ARE the leader. Its normal for Liberals to be slapped into submission. John Howard taught us this. When a strong figure is not present, the party turns into rabble. But I’m sorry buddy, you don’t seem to have the power to hold the party together.

His legacy remains obvious in the power vacuum he left behind.

Without the strongman that was John Howard, the Coalition has spiraled downwards, flitting from leader to leader, swapping loyalties, reshuffles and bad calls. Honestly, without an all-powerful leader, the Coalition is ungovernable.

If you go down with the ship, you’ll be remembered as the most honorable and honest leader the Liberal Party has had in quite a while, Turnbull. You’ve stuck to your guns, and you haven’t let the lobby groups speak for you.

Good luck buddy. I honestly hope you remain the leader of the Coalition. I’d prefer there be an ETS in Australia, and you seem to be the Coalitions last hope for redemption. Honestly, the Coalition will be slaughtered if they keep holding back on climate change. Whilst for me this is not nessisarily a bad thing, I’d prefer there be a coherant opposition. Joe Hockey might follow in your footsteps, but he’d suffer the same fate.

So, to the climate skeptics, and dishonorable rabble that infests the Liberal Party, and IS the National Party; Bugger off. You’re just lobby groups. Australians care about the economy, but we care about the environment as well. You lot are no good when it comes to this.

Once again, good luck Malcolm.

And probably won’t pass for a while now. Watching the Senate session going on at the moment, Senate Majority Leader Chris Evans has entered into a tirade against the Liberals and their leadership fiasco and has been doing so for about half an hour now. And he hasn’t let the Nationals slip by – he just called Senator Williams ‘Whacko Williams representing the Whackos’. Funny stuff. There’s maybe 8 minutes until 3:45pm and there’s no way a vote is going to happen. They have ruled out ending debate and return to the ammendments on Monday.

Of course, Abbott and his gang have called for a leadership spill at 9am on Monday, so there will likely be a new leadership team and that will give precidence to throw out the agreement and the ammendments, and vote down the ETS. Evans is talking about extending the Liberals full faith come Monday, but I think he knows what’s going to happen.

What is symbolic of the whole thing is that Chris Evans is sitting in the leadership chair of the Labor party, but no one is sitting in the Liberal’s seat.

Thomas.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells has quit her post as parliamentary secretary. This was a big surprise as not only had I pegged her as a Turnbull supporter, but she had come out in favour of the ETS deal that had been hashed out with Labor on Tuesday. My guess is that she had her preselection threatened. She was probably one of the first targetted, being part of the conservative faction of the Liberals.

From this it would assume that, overnight, Fierravanti-Wells has changed her mind and will vote against the ETS – or at least try and delay it. Alongside her in the overnight change is Bill Heffernan and Helen Kroger. Heffernan, from NSW like Fierravanti-Wells, was probably convinced by leadership not so much a threat to his preselection.He was probably target number 2, being from the conservative faction as well.

Assuming that Turnbull has some control over the senators that have been identified as still loyal to the leadership, and that the delay tactics don’t work and a vote does come up (which is looking less likely, though still plausable), I calculate that he still has these votes: Gary Humphries (ACT), Helen Coonan, Marise Payne (NSW), Sue Boyce, George Brandis, Russell Trood (QLD), Simon Birmingham (SA), Richard Colbeck (TAS), Judith Troeth, Michael Ronaldson (VIC), David Johnston (WA).

Troeth, retiring at her next election and from the left faction within the party, is a certain lock. Birmingham, from the highly factional SA and nemesis of Nick Minchin, is a lock as well. Payne I would say is a lock as well, being a progressive in the party. Brandis too is a progressive within his party on a lot of issues and, while outspoken in his criticism of the Greens in the past, I imagine he is supportive of Turnbull and the ETS. Coonan is part of the shadow cabinet and hasn’t quit yet – probably an indication she would vote with the Liberal leadership and for the ETS. She’s also a Howard veteran who won’t easily be strong-armed around like Fierravanti-Wells. But she’s also a survivalist it would seem (having been a cabinet member of Howard, then Nelson, then Turnbull). She might see her vote against the ETS would position her better in the future and vote no. But having stuck this long, I think, has doomed her anyway.

So if these five vote yes, Turnbull and Labor only need two more votes if it comes up. I think Humpries is one to focus on. He’s a bit of a renegade – the first Liberal senator to vote against Howard in 10 years over the ACT’s civil union issue. Ronaldson is another I would work over. Troeth’s state compadre, she probably has a line of communication there to use. He also has Turnbull to thank for his quick rise to power. He’s also part of the shadow cabinet, and hasn’t quit yet, so there’s an indication much like Coonan’s. There’s a theoretical seven votes.

Ideally, both Labor and Turnbull would like to get eight or nine, just to be safe. I believe that the WA senators will be coping it from all sides, and will probably fold. So focus on the QLD senators, where Brandis has some relationship with them. Boyce and Trood who have stuck with the ETS this long are the two I’d go for. There’s a real danger for Trood, who is up for reelection at the next election. If it’s a regular election, the ETS issue will be at the front and with Rudd, Swan and other prominent faces of the government turning out the vote for Labor, Trood could lose his spot in the Senate.

There’s under an hour until the supposed deadline for the ETS vote. We’ll see what happens.

Thomas.

I don’t believe an ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) is about saving the planet from climate change.  This does NOT make me a climate change denialist.

No, I believe an ETS is all about money and preserving high-carbon polluting industries such as our coal and power generating industries in Australia. Those industries have a lot of political clout. And they’re very good at lobbying the government. And then there’s the risk of high unemployment figures if those industries have to cut their carbon emissions drastically. Those in the business are fearful of lost profits. Those who work for them are fearful of losing their jobs and not being able to pay their mortgages.

This short piece, by David Bonnici over at Group Think , whilst very cutting, pretty much sums up what I think of the ETS.

Having said all of the above, I am resigned to the likelihood of an ETS being introduced in Australia. Sadly, I don’t think it will result in any great reductions of anyone’s carbon footprint except  those who are keen and committed and willing to make an effort.

It feels like everyone is breathing a sigh of relief. An ETS will save us, we just pay more money and we can keep driving our petrol hungry cars and burn up as much electricity as we like. Ditto big time if you’re a coal-fired power generator.

To me, an ETS feels like a fake economy, a new stockmarket to play in and make big profits.

Whilst all the political kerfuffle rages on around me, I shall keep doing my little bits and pieces to reduce my own carbon footprint.

My electricity usage is 15.83kWh per day. My power bill tells me that for the past 80 days my carbon emissions for electricity comes to 862kg.

Well, phone calls all round the Liberal base. Do we vote for an ETS to avoid a double dissolution and putative electoral annihilation, or do we fight it because it is right to do so and the tide is turning?

The fear is that rejecting will lead to a double dissolution election in February with Abbott as leader. Not a great option, as for independents my guess is Abbott is as attractive as Joe Tripodi. And lead to the possibility of 3 elections in the wilderness if the Liberals are wiped out. The option instead? Install Hockey, vote for the ETS and spend 6 months reuniting the party. Hah! a party where the majority don’t want to vote for the ETS. Good luck with that unity thing.

It’s lose-lose for the Liberals. Since it is likely the Liberals will lose the next election anyway, and the chance remains that the CRU emails will hit the mainstream eventually, the other option is for the Liberals to take the short term electoral hit, position as the party of reason and science, and ride the wave of AGW rejection that will flow across the rest of the world over the next 5 years.

In political terms, not terribly appealing either.

But at least the ETS, the AGW religion, the deficits, the workplace relations and so on will all be seen to be Rudd’s doing. No co-responsibility. A principled stand. Better to lose principled than lose populist.

Don Brash, 27 January 2004:

Is it to be a modern democratic society, embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state?

Or is it the racially divided nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of citizenship, that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?

Phil Goff, 26 November 2009:

We can choose our future based on principle and with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart.

Or we can have a country where one New Zealander is turned against another, Maori against Pakeha, in a way that Labour strongly rejects.

And both speeches were entitled “Nationhood”.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m as angry as anyone about the Maori Party’s sellout in supporting watering down the ETS to something that will be completely ineffective.

Goff was right to attack them on that (even though Labour’s ETS would itself have been been only minimally effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

But he didn’t stop there – he’s crawled down into the sewer with Brash by dog-whistling the racist underbelly of society. Disgusting!

No-one should be surprised. Malcolm has always been about Malcolm, and has been a Liberal in name only. Any outsider not suffering from the Liberal parliamentary wing’s perennial problem of looking for a “business saviour”  (remember John Elliot, anyone?) would have forecast an eventual meltdown like the Gordon Gretch affair and the hubris of his stand on the CPRS.

So today’s press is all about the revolt (Australian, SMH, The Punch). No surprise there either, since internal party matters (ie, gossip) are much easier to report than substantial policy issues. Even though this is the first time in memory that a spill is fundamentally based on a policy, not personal or tribal, issue. The absence of real media reportage on the reason for the split is remarkable. A throwaway line of sceptics versus Malcolm, and that’s it.

No mention of the collapse of credibility of the AGW case.  Oh well. At least the Wall Street Journal has been running a rational case. The latest on the CPRS says it well.

The Copenhagen climate-change deal is crumbling, but no matter: Australia’s Labor government wants to pass its very own cap-and-trade bill this week, even though it won’t curb global warming but will raise energy prices and cost thousands of jobs…

…Mr. Rudd’s appeal to emotion is the only way to justify the passage of the bill he’s staked his government’s credibility on, because the economics sure don’t support it.

But what the whole process has done has been to accelerate the revelation of Turnbull’s true colours. He’s not just a moderate – that’s what I am. He’s a romantic populist like Rudd, just with Liberal connections and a lot of money.

What the Liberals desperately need now is a classical liberal leader. No throwback conservative like Abbott or Andrews, effective politicians they may be. But it is an indictment of the party that it seems populated only by the knee-jerk right or floppy romanticists.

Flicking through my daily delivered paper a few days back- after peeling off all the adds and throwing out all the pamphlets that the tricky buggers hide through the pages like some kind of sadistic Easter hunt but with crap advertising campaigns- I happened across the most daunting of pages.

A message from TRUenergy, who care about what you do with your money, and who you spend it on. No really, they do!

This shocking page took my breath away and caused me to lose consciousness for 5 minutes. When I woke, I was drenched with sweat, and my tea was cold, the chill that swept the room had long since smothered the warmth.

This was an outrage! Blasphemy! How could they!

How dare the government attempt to appease its people over issues they really cared about! This is totally unacceptable!

…

I think you understand where I’m going with this by now. At least, I hope you do. If you don’t, bugger off.

TRUenergy is a disgrace. The issue of climate change and the need for an ETS  has been at the forefront of public debate for years. In fact, longer than the apparent grueling 2 years this company has been lobbying the government to cut it some slack.

First off; I despite lobby groups. How dare they attempt to circumvent the political process by going straight to the top and claiming they represent anyone beyond their narrow-minded veiws on how things should be run.

In this modern world where climate change is at the forefront of public thought, major polluters like energy companies and mining companies are the last people the government should be listening to.

Yes, these companies create thousands of jobs, and pumps billions of dollars into the economy every month. But the fact is that these are the people that are doing most of the polluting. Yes, we need to keep these jobs if we can, and yes, we want the money to keep flowing, BUT we need to do something about how they conduct themselves. The solution to climate change and polluters lies with these companies.

Why? Well, because they provide electricity and resources to us. What do we want? we want less pollution and less environmental degradation. How can these companies do this for us? Well, they could invest in renewable energy sources and maybe even nuclear power. They could become more efficient or encourage more people to save power.

Now, for the most part I’m talking about the power companies, but the mining companies are in there too sometimes.

As I’ve said before in this blog, I’m a firm believer in the re-nationalization of utilities like power and water. Why? Because its almost impossible to make any money out of these sectors as a private company without charging huge fees. And even then, services are shit and efficiency is crap. Maintenance gets skipped over for short-term savings and customers get gauged for money at every corner.

As such, the electricity companies are paid subsidies by the government to run the electricity sector. So, wouldn’t these companies have a duty to the government that signs its paychecks to do as the people (who are represented by the government) want? This is a more leftist approach by the way if you hadn’t noticed. I’ll look at the right wing business side later on.

So, the people are represented by the government, which pays the electricity companies to provide power to its people. However the people want there to be less pollution, and are pushing for things like the Emissions Trading Scheme that is being debated over right now.

So, where is the problem? The company is not an independent body. Its the governments bitch. The government tells the company to jump, damn well it should jump but ONLY AFTER asking how high.

The company does not answer to the opposition. -Which is currently in chaos thanks to the ETS. -The company answers to the government that signs its paychecks.

-The government that signs its paychecks that coincidentally represents the people who pay the money it gets to sign its paychecks. The people who want change, and want less pollution.

So the people are well and truly against these companies. Whoops, tough luck I guess. Maybe they should try to make friends instead of appealing to fears and the hip pocket nerve like the National Party would.

But then again, right now the only coherent opposition publicly to the ETS I’ve seen lately has been this lone company. Why? Well because even the opposition parties can’t make up its mind on what they want out of the ETS. They’ve already had the government water it down more than a cola you buy at a cinema. Its a shadow of what we need, but even then the National and Liberal Parties are at each others throats, as are the factions within the Liberal Party.

SO the ETS is watered down to hell, and TRUenergy still bitches about how its going to ruin it and this state. Oh, the humanity. Like I said before, the company should have invested in renewable energy a long time ago and worked towards this sort of thing over time instead of being bitch slapped and told what to do.

So instead of appealing directly to the people, I honestly beleive the company at hand should listen to the damn government and do as it says. Why have they gone out and appealed to us like this? Not only have they ignored the government, they’re trying to reflect the opinions of the divided opposition. Since when did private companies that were formerly government owned become part of the opposition?

As a part of the government, and the mechanisms that make it up, this company has no voice. It is not meant to have one. It is apolitical. The services that make up the government answer to the party that is in charge, and no other.

What its done is alienate itself by using fear tactics, in a bid to ’save itself’ from the very government that pretty much owns it. Does this company care about us and what we’re doing with our money? No. As long as we keep paying them. Does this company care about the state of the environment? Obviously not given that this advertisment is against any form of ETS designed to minimise damage.

This full-page ad is surely just a knee-jerk reaction to the possibility of them losing money, in a bid to cover their asses for when they start gauging us for more money to cover their losses and get the chance to say ‘told you so’. Amazingly most Australians want this change and more. So wherever did they get this idea from.

So they’re obviously not our friends. Even as a government subsidised industry. They’re out to save themselves, and now they want the government to give them money. Our money. The government is already doing this as compensation, but they want more. My answer to this stuff? Give them nothing. This is where the business side comes into it.

Its a company in the private sector thats backed up by the government that competes with other companies for customers. If they’re losing customers because they’re switching to other companies, or losing revenue because more people are saving money; tough luck. Its called business. Maybe they should have invested in more desirable power sources. Why should the taxpayer end up paying these companies ‘compensation’ because noone likes them anymore? We shouldn’t.

So thats a black mark next to the government for giving them ANYTHING but what they agreed to pay as subsidies for running this utility, and that’s a black mark next to the companies names for being soft, incompetent business failures and begging the government for more money- that they don’t deserve.

I’m done ranting about this, but my underlying beleif is that TRUenergy sucks, and should be nationalised. They’re getting so much money from the government we should own the damn thing anyway. They have no right to be the voice of the opposition, nor do they have the right to appeal directly to the Victorian public with scare tactics.

Hell, I’m really glad this household isn’t supplied by them.

Abbott is leaving the front bench of the Coalition, it’s reported, so that he can vote against the ETS bill. It’s expected that the shadow cabinet tow the line with the leader. By opting out of the cabinet, Abbott is free to vote how he wants. And he wants the leadership of the Liberals. So, by positioning himself as the opposite of Turnbull and his faction within the party (which I expect Hockey is a part of), he is the clear alternative to that wing.

Turnbull was making a statement at 5:15pm. That was half an hour ago, so I expect the wires to go into meltdown soon.

My post on the reshuffle of the shadow cabinet, written yesterday, still applies. It’s got a new update. Check it out here.

Update: Tony Abbott, it’s just broken into the coverage of the cricket (so it must be important!), has resigned from the front bench. Either word got to him it was resign or be pushed or he’s planning to usurp from the back benches. So much for being the loyal guy that he is.

With this, I expect Nick Minchin will step down as leader in the Senate. If he doesn’t, it will be very interesting to see what happens. If the cabinet is expect to tow the pro-vote line, then he should step down. Or he will be forced out. Abbott has provided a precedence for booting cabinet members who don’t vote for the ETS now.

Turnbull can’t take a break, can he? What else can happen in the next week? Turnbull isn’t budging from his position, and is standing tough. But tough enough? He can’t flip-flop here, otherwise he will (if it’s possible) fall further  into the political abyss. At least if he maintains his position here, he will have some credibility at least among his supporters. If he changes, watch Hockey firm up (though, much like Turnbull, far too early) as the favourite of that faction.

Thomas.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Oh, yes he does.

These are difficult days for any Liberal, but especially for a rational,  moderate Liberal. Because for once in its life, the Right of the party is doing the right thing, and the Moderates are acting like fools.

It hurts. One of the reasons I joined the party was to support moderate positions and rational policy. To have the Right fighting the ETS – albeit for different reasons than mine, probably – and the moderates describing themselves as “progressive” and therefore supporting it, is a complete turnaround from my experience. I’ve spent years in the NSW branch of the party trying to avoid the Right precisely because I thought they were bad for the party and bad for the nation. And here they are doing the right thing while moderates fail in a “progressive” beauty contest.

This represents a real failure of Liberal philosophy. We’ve wandered away from the Free Minds, Free Markets, rational policy that separated us from the ALP, and got into a markdown sale to attract the romantic, the irrational, the anti-humanity green crowd precisely when such views are starting to shift.

I catch myself here – am I arguing for a libertarian Liberal party? In hope yes, in reality, no. In Australia we have to have a conservative-classical liberal alliance. Maybe I’m just arguing for a few more classical liberals in parliament, rather than the floppy all-things-to-all-men leadership we have now.

That’s what is so disappointing. I look to the moderates to rationalise some of the NSW right’s more ridiculous policy and election decisionmaking. I don’t look to them to take the Liberals into floppy, feel-good, gesture politics that inevitably pander to the conventional wisdom of the “compassion crowd”. Leading is about making hard decisions. This lot – the current federal leadership – seem incapable of doing that.

If you were following the news recently like I have in regards to the ETS. Its not the outcome that I’m expecting, as the ETS is likely to pass, even though there a many Liberal members who is loyaled to Malcom Turnbull are in favour of the ETS. Lets hope the ETS gets voted down in Parliament.

Many Liberals should leave home attached to the stone of shame. These guys aren’t conservertives. They are more like lefties here. They should have known that the ETS is another Tax by the Labour Government, that means producers or goods and serivces will pass on the cost to consumers, we at the bottom end will pay for it.

All the small income earners and those living under the poverty line will be worst off than before despite being compensated by government, whats makes matters worse. Inflation will going to distort wages, prices and etc. Whats this means is more of your money goes into government coffers and a illusion of wealth.

Therefore people still worse off and ends paying up for more on good and services then ever before, due to the current policies that both of the Federal Government and the Reserve Bank of Australia are persuading.

For bloody god sakes, No more new taxes, Scrap the ETS, reduce government and reduce taxes.

Then, we will be alright!

Cheers

Vote against the ETS: Ian Macdonald, Brett Mason (QLD), Cory Bernardi, Alan Ferguson, Nick Minchin (SA), Guy Barnett, David Bushby, Stephen Parry, , Eric Abetz (TAS), Mitch Fifield, Julian McGauran, Scott Ryan (VIC), Judith Adams, Chris Back, Michaelia Cash, Mathias Cormann, Alan Eggleston (WA).

Vote for the ETS: Gary Humphries (ACT), Helen Coonan, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Bill Heffernan, Marise Payne (NSW), Sue Boyce, George Brandis, Russell Trood (QLD), Simon Birmingham (SA), Richard Colbeck (TAS), Helen Kroger, Judith Troeth, Michael Ronaldson (VIC), David Johnston (WA).

Abstain: Mary Jo Fisher (SA)

That’s my pick. Minchin won’t get over his ego and will vote no. I think all the NSW Liberals will vote for the bill, and more WA and TAS Liberals will vote against it which seemingly reflects that this issue is being treated at least partially on a state-by-state approach. Similarly, more SA Liberals will vote against it than vote for it – I suspect not due to state-based issues but due to politics: Minchin comes from the state and has a bunch of sway over pre-selections, and the state is probably the most swing state in the country at the moment in terms of voting patterns. Scott Ryan might vote for the ETS but, at the moment, all indications suggest that he will vote against it. But, the past 72 hours might have changed his mind though.

Of course it could all change, but if the vote were being held today, this is how I’d pick it. But whatever way the dice fall, Turnbull is still going to have problems in the party.

Update: Might as well throw this out the window with the events that have happened later in the day. Unless Turnbull finds a miracle, he’s a goner. And when that happens, the new leader will be anti-ETS, and no one will cross the bench. Double dissolution back on the cards early next year?

Update 2: Vote will likely be back on. Turnbull’s ’stand firm’ approach to all this fru-ha-ha seems to indicate that he will perserve to get the ETS voted through by 3:45pm tomorrow. WIll be interesting to see if his attackers figure out a way to stop him before tomorrow afternoon.

Thomas.

The Rudd Government has given the green light to allow front bench politicians to eat popcorn during sittings of Parliament.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said that the entertainment offered by the Opposition during Question Time was now so good that “it was hard to look away”.
“I nearly pissed myself yesterday… you can’t look away for a minute, you just don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s awesome stuff,” he said. “I love the bit where Turnbull comes back into the room and you want to scream ‘watch out, behind you!’”
Bowls of salted popcorn will be available from the next sitting of Parliament, the spokesman said, with the government considering instant pizza deliveries, heated reclining chairs and a 3D Gold Class where the Coalition look like real people.
James Melville from the Institute of Constitutional Studies said: “I love a train wreck as much as the next guy, but this kind of entertainment should really be on pay per view. The kinds of plot lines being offered up by Malcolm Turnbull and his team is, like, fuckin’ Hollywood man… who could have seen Andrew Robb springing up to defy his leader like that? It’s like ‘The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist… and like that, poof, he’s gone’.”

Good morrrrrrning everyone!

This is Taliya.  I know that you all probably think that the 4Fives disappeared, right? Since we haven’t posted or written anything in like 2 weeks?  Well, we didn’t!  We have been like really really crazy doing test prep stuff for our city wide Social Studies exams.  But we just finished the tests last week, and now we are going to get back in action!!!!

There are also a ton of other things going on, and I am going to tell you a little bit about each of them.  Then, when we get back from Thanksgiving break, we will tell you more about them in their own posts!

#1:  Editor-in-Chief.  First of all, the 4Fives have been so so so SO lucky to have their very own Editor-in-Chief!!!! Ms. Edie, the most fabulous of all fabulous kids in the world, has been helping us edit our posts.  Edie is a 5th grade student at a school in Manhattan.  We will be posting an entire post next week dedicated to this awesome girl… so keep your eyes open. ps- Edie, if you are reading this, I am so so so so sorry that we haven’t written any posts or sent you any posts in forever.  I hope you forgive us.

#2: Eco-Tech Blog: Since we haven’t been busy enough (ha ha ha ha ha), the 4Fives have started an Eco-Tech blog!  This blog is going to be focusing on all of the stuff that we are doing that is related to the environment, technology, and art.  We will also be putting all of our La Oroya stuff on this blog.  Check it out HERE!

#3: La Oroya Project: Oh my god. There are so many things to tell you here, but I don’t really know where to begin.  Well, I guess that I will just tell you that we are still Skyping with Jed, we started a business with the coooooolest person ever, Mary-Margret, we are getting ready to start working with a group of kids in Peru, we designed and illustrated a La Oroya logo, we are starting to plan out our DOCUMENTARY!!!! that we are doing, and we are learning all about starting and being a part of an environmental and social movement. Wow.

#4: Our classroom garden is coming along. We are learning how hard it can be to be a horticulturist.

#5: Some of the 4Fives went on an after-school trip to visit the artist Chris Astley!!!

This was like so so so so amazing! Bee and Ms. Kimball took us there.  And you will never guess who was there!  It was Edie! Because Chris is her dad.  So we got to work on this awesome project with Edie. You can read our post about it next week!  I am in love with this project because we get to go back and work there again in just a couple of weeks.

#6: We are getting started on our class water project.  Save water!!!! Yay!!!!

Okay. I am sure that I forgot a bunch of stuff. But there are going to be like a million posts coming very soon. And you will get to see a lot of pictures and a lot of videos.  I hope that you are excited.  Because I am.

Have a great day and a great Thanksgiving. Gobble gobble eat turkey.

Love,

Taliya

Oh. And here is me and Bee being crazy on photo booth this morning.

Especially when it Comes to the Australian Liberal Party.

I can almost admire Malcolm Turnbulls decision to back the modified version of the ETS.

Almost…

It is a brave decision going against the wishes of the majority of the people who elected him into his seat and indeed the member’s of parliament who elected him as leader not to mention the  48% of people who voted Liberal at the last election (Who could forget them ! ). You DO have to give him points for doing what he believes is right for the nation. No matter how miss guided it is.

Make no mistake it IS misguided and one can only wonder exactly what makes him so keen to back a plan that will have no positive effect on the environment and that will cost business and majority of Australians a fortune.

Recently there has been news about emails surfacing which proves that lead scientists  (that the UN use to make the case for Global Warming) have been fudging the data to make the man made global warming case more sustainable. Surely this makes this whole  premise  seem more and more like a great hoax.

As much as I can almost admire poor Malcolm’s deluded decision to back Labor’s attempt to tax this nation into oblivion. I can not say the same thing about his member’s of parliament who could still could stop him and labour from implementing this misguided scheme.

Case in Point: Tony Abbott

Today on Sydney Radio Station 2GB with Jason Morrison, I heard an interview that made my blood boil. It also made me wonder who the majority of our leaders really work for us or themselves ? Tony is smart enough to realise as he admitted today that the ETS scheme was going to be disastrous for our country. I thought great here is a man a senior liberal shadow minister with brains and the ability to do something about this crazy scheme. He went on to say however that although he didn’t believe in the bill  he was STILL going to vote for it anyway. I’m sorry ??? What was that ?

Vote for something that is bad for the nation ????

Surely he cant be serious ? Unfortunately he WAS.

He went on to say that he was going to vote for the policy for the solidarity (the good) of the party.

Again “What the ???”

So lets get this straight, Tony not only doesn’t have the fortitude to step up and take over from a seriously mis guided leader, he will not defy his party and leader and vote for something he knows is bad for the country?

This is school yard stuff.  ” I know those kids shouldn’t be kicking and punching that poor little kid, but Im not going to do anything  about it , in fact I might just join in because if I dont they might start picking on me and punching me!!!” OK maybe thats going a little too far but you get my point.

The sad thing is Tony Abbott will not be alone… While people like Tony are running our country, we can never assume that the right thing is going to be done. It has shaken me to the core. I have been a Liberal voter all my life, however how can I vote for a party that is allowing this bad - dare I say evil scheme through parliament even they don’t believe in the bill themselves.

I urge you to don’t just sit there and let this happen write call or fax your local member of parliament and tell them what you think. You never know a miracle might happen and our liberal politicians might grow a backbone and do what they were employed to do.
Do what the people who elected them want them to do.

And that’s the way it is.

UPDATE: 2GB have posted the interview I am referring to on thier website . Click on the below link to go to it.

http://2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5271

If I were Turnbull and reshuffling my whole cabinet, the first move I’d make is remove Nick Minchin as Leader of the Opposition in  the Senate and Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (token title for this relic of the Howard Era). There’s a number of people I’d consider to replace him him with: Eric Abetz, currently Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research would be the foremost contender; Ian McDonald, currently Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia is also viable too. But for a big shake-up, the best option is Marise Payne, currently Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs. If your were going to establish an electable cabinet that is moderate (and not pulling to the far right), then you would put Marise Payne up as the face of the Liberals in the Senate.

I would dump Andrew Robb and Tony Abbott. Clearly the two men are positioning to have a go at the leadership. Robb’s latest declaration to the Liberals to not support the ETS and Abbott’s weeks of re-positioning himself against climate change are clear indications that they are courting opponents of Turnbull as viable alternatives. Robb, out of the two, has the best shot at winning in a party vote and winning an election, but not just yet.

Update: Tony Abbott, it’s just broken into the coverage of the cirkcet (so it must be important!), has resigned from the front bench. Either word got to him it was resign or be pushed or he’s planning to usurp from the back benches. So much for being the loyal guy that he is.

Robb, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design, would get replaced by David Johnson, current Shadow Minister for Defense. Defense would be given to Bob Baldwin, current backbencher.

Abbott, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector, would get pushed for Sharman Stone, current Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (and, as an aside, she must be fuming that she got Turnbull traction in the polls with her work on the Coalition’s position on the immigration fiasco that’s gone down for it to be all blown over in-fighting). But the portfolio would be shifted to just be Indigenous Affairs. Immigration and Citizenship would be given to Judi Moylan, current backbencher and one of the few Liberals who took part in the revolt to end mandatory detention. This would appeal to voters in building a moderate face for the Liberals. Alternatively, Russell Broadbent, also a backbencher, stood alongside Moylan and would also serve this post well.

Peter Dutton, not having really done anything wrong, would go from being the Shadow Minister of Health and Ageing to the Shadow Minister of Health. The new portfolio would be Shadow Minister for Familes, Community Services, Ageing and the Voluntary Sector and it would go to Joanna Gash, current backbencher. I, personally, feel that health needs a distinct focus from these other areas which all have a degree of overlap. Increase the communication between the two departments by all means, but I feel they need to be separated.

Nola Marino, backbencher, is someone else I’d like to see put into the shadow cabinet. I’m sure there’s some other backstabber to get rid of somewhere.

The rest I’d leave as is. You can’t disrupt the Nationals because they are a peculiar group (though if I could change their leadership I would). The rest there is a good group of moderates and strong candidates who would serve the party well. There’s only one threat left, that being Joe Hockey. But I think it would be foolish of to remove any potential future leader from the front bench (for the sake of the future of the party), as well as to get in your main competitor’s bad books.You might also notice that there’s a number of women taking the places of men. I think that’s something the Liberals need not to give ‘token’ places to women (these portfolios are hardly token), but in that having women on the front bench of the Coalition will encourage potential female candidates to try their hand with the Liberals and Nationals. And as long as Labor has a grip on this demographic, they have a headstart. The Liberals fell between 7% and 10% in their female vote at the last election. One way to get some of those votes back is to make an attempt to build a cabinet that doesn’t look like you’re ignoring women and women’s issues.

That’s what I’d do before the end of the week. Probably on Friday and try and get a lot of run for the news over the weekend with press events with the new faces. Spin it for all it’s worth before the vote of the ETS. Because when the ETS comes around, that’s going to be the news. When it does, point  to the fact that the whole Liberals cabinet didn’t cross the floor (and make sure they don’t!). After that, build up a platform that your party can get behind. Or be pushed behind. Either option.

Thomas.

Despite Malcolm Turnbull ostensibly emerging triumphant from yesterday’s marathon party room meeting, and Ian Macfarlane’s backing that Malcolm ‘has the numbers’ to survive any leadership challenge, debate is rife on what the bitter split means for the future of the Liberal Party.

Turnbull refused to be drawn on the margin of his “majority supporters” however some reports suggest it could be as narrow as 3. Moreover reports are emerging that many of the opponents to the Government’s scheme were not present at the time of the vote.

Climate change rebels said 40 backbenchers spoke against a deal and only 33 supported Mr Turnbull’s position.

Tony Abbott’s support has wavered in recent weeks, firstly supporting Turnbull, then switching allegiances to Nick Minchin and today he’s back behind Turnbull again. Tony Abbott has ruled out a direct challenge to Turnbull’s leadership however he hasn’t ruled out standing for the Leadership should a challenge eventuate.

There is speculation that should a leadership challenge emerge from another individual, such as Kevin Andrews, this would be a ‘low-risk strategy for the Liberals to oust Turnbull and ultimately replace Andrews with Tony Abbott.

Today, Kevin Andrews has announced that he’s ready to challenge.

Mr Andrews told Macquarie Radio today there could be a spill of the party leadership in coming days because of dissatisfaction with the way the emissions trading scheme (ETS) had been handled.

“There is growing concern in the electorate that this is going to be a massive tax by Mr Rudd which we will be paying for, not just for years, but for decades to come,” he said.

“There has been no economic debate about the real impact of this on Australians.”

Mr Andrews said he believed a spill motion had been circulated and seconded.

“It would be extraordinary if that wasn’t facilitated,” he said.

If Mr Turnbull did not call a meeting over the issue on Thursday, Mr Andrews said party members would be forced “to think about what happens”.

Asked if he would be a starter if the positions of Mr Turnbull and Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop became vacant, he replied, “Yes I would”.

However Mr Turnbull today has refused to call a party room meeting about the leadership.

Two Liberal backbenchers have written to the opposition leader asking for a meeting of MPs and senators.

“You don’t just call meetings when people write you letters,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio today, adding the party room had the opportunity to spill the leadership “at any time” during the meeting.

When asked whether that meant a “no” to a meeting on Thursday, he said: “Absolutely.”

To quote his sidekick, Turnbull is walking aroung with “a shit eating grin” but his days as Leader are well and truly numbered. Likewise, the future of the Liberal Party as we currently know it will be transformed by the end of this week.

UPDATE: Leadership Spill Announced!!! The Liberal Party will vote on the leadership at 1pm.