Gillard "untrustworthy and tricky" over carbon tax

Twisting in the wind...

Julia Gillard is just like a weathervane, twisting in the wind this way and that with no guiding principles to fall back on. She is like Humpty Dumpty: words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

The Australian’s Cut and Paste summarises perfectly:

I’m happy to say tax. 7.30 on ABC, February 24:

HEATHER Ewart: With this carbon tax, you do concede it’s a carbon tax, do you not?

Julia Gillard: Oh, look, I’m happy to use the word tax. I understand some silly little collateral debate has broken out today. I mean, how ridiculous.

The media may make me say it. Gillard, Today, February 27:

LAURIE, I didn’t want to get caught up in what I knew would be one of those semantic word games about whether I would say the word “tax”. You know how these games are played. A politician decides they’re not going to say a word, and then media, people like yourself, Laurie, spend weeks trying to make them say it. I wasn’t going to do any of that.
The parliament made me say it. Gillard, Radio 2SM, February 28:

YES, I did, John, and working with this parliament I have agreed that there will be a fixed price period before we get to a full market-based pricing scheme. That is effectively like a tax, I’m happy to say that and I’m happy to say that I worked with the parliament the Australian people voted for.

Tony Abbott made me say it. Gillard yesterday:

NOW, what Tony Abbott likes to refer to as a carbon tax, a fixed-price period for an emissions trading scheme, is a period I believe should be as short as possible and today can I say to Australians the debate that they are hearing about a carbon tax is a debate about what Tony Abbott calls a carbon tax, which will be for a limited period of time, and then we will move to an emissions trading scheme which I support, John Howard supports, Malcolm Turnbull supports. (source)

Not forgetting the biggest porkie of all, in August 2010,

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

And Tony Abbott pounces:

Mr Abbott said Ms Gillard had been calling the carbon price a tax for months. “If it looks like a tax, if it works like a tax, if it costs like a tax, it is a tax.

“What we see is a Prime Minister who is compounding incompetence with trickery.

“We know that this is a government which was untrustworthy, now it’s being tricky as well and I think that the Australian public deserves better than a Prime Minister who is not only untrustworthy but tricky on top of that, too,” Mr Abbott said. (source)

This is unfortunately what happens when you have no principles (except the one reminding you to stay in power at all costs).


  1. I don’t understand how a party can throw out Rudd, and not throw out Gillard (at least not yet), when she is much more incompetent, let alone less popular.

    I guess their only excuse is that dumping two leaders within a couple of years doesn’t make one’s party look too credible. Having said that, holding on to a leader like Gillard doesn’t make a party look too credible, either. Lesser of two evils?

  2. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Surely it just boils down to the obvious difficulty she’s having in remembering the lies she told the day before?

    • Richardn says:

      When does the labor backbench say enough is enough. They must know that they face decimation at the next election if they stick with Gillard. Where is their basic instinct of self preservation? Surly they are not all warmist to the core?

  3. Graham Richards says:

    I am really getting pissed off waking up to another lie every morning. Please can someone get rid of this bunch of incompetants.

  4. rukidding says:

    She is like Humpty Dumpty: words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

    I thought that came from Alice in Wonderland which probably would be more appropriate anyway.:-)

    • Confusious says:

      Can we get quickly a wall for her? Can Brown, Swan, Combet, Conroy, Oakeshott, Winsdor and all the other marxist leeches sit along her?!!

  5. Baldrick says:

    ‘tax’ – noun (taxes, plural) A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. Source: Wikipedia –

    If I’m going to pay $26* per tonne to the government, in the form of additional costs added to goods and services, for my carbon dioxide usage – then it’s a TAX. JuLIAR is the only one playing semantic word games.
    *( $26 in the 1st year / $32 in the 2nd / $38 in the 3rd … before a ETS is introduced, at which time the Greens are hoping for a price of $120 per tonne of air … sorry carbon dioxide!)

  6. Rick Bradford says:

    “Today’s progressive leftist is steeped in and encouraged by an ideology that rewards only feelings and not critical thinking or truth; fantasy and not reality; and good intentions instead of actual outcome in the real world.

    “Th[is] leads the the poor, innocent and unsuspecting lefist into cognitive dissonance in his thinking patterns and wreaks all sorts of misery and spiritual destruction on the people who are the targets of the leftists’ supposed goodwill.

    “But they neither care nor notice, since the primary determinant of why they do what they do is to make themselves feel good; to escape for one brief moment the emptiness of their own individual souls and the self-hatred and rage that motivate them.”

  7. How is it a “fixed price” when it is going to increase every year until the ETS?

    • She means fixed as opposed to floating and determined by market forces under an ETS, but I know what you mean 😉

  8. Anyone read Barry Jones in the Mouthpiece today? Is he after another speaking tour?

    • Yes, no real surprise there, supporting the labour party as usual. I just love how sceptics are fear mongerers and the alarmists are not.
      I reckon that predicting the end of the world as we know it, is a little more serious when it comes to valuing fear mongering statements.
      A point he made in his article about people saying that they accept or reject AGW without any analysis.
      I suggest that he read some sceptics thoughts online. Sceptics have generally heard both sides of the issue and have based their decisions on that.
      I also feel from the comments sceptics make is that they generally keep up to date with both sides of the debate.
      I dont know that a majority of the alarmists can say the same.

  9. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    This is the same deceitful tactic as switching terminology from “man-made global warming” to “climate change”… this is the same deceitful tactic as switching terminology from “carbon dioxide” to “carbon pollution”…

    … this is how dishonest and untrustworthy the Gillard government has become… trying to treat Australians as fools!

    Australia must stop this nonsense before the Gillard government sends the economy into a painful downward spiral!

  10. Why on earth doesn’t Julia keep abreast of the latest news from the Climate Scientists?

    According to climatedepot dot com there are now more than a thousand scientists who contradict the IPCC scientists who now only number as few as 52.

    The High Court of the State of Montana threw out a petition from Warmists just two weeks ago because there is no firm evidence of any global warming.

    The longer Julia disregards these facts the deeper the hole she is digging for herself and for her party. At the very least she could put a pause on the mad dash for a carbon tax until science can prove a definite need for some action.

%d bloggers like this: