Interesting title. Compare it with the ABC’s version:
ABC: Woolworths chief executive Brad Banducci announces retirement as company announces $781m loss
Interesting title. Compare it with the ABC’s version:
ABC: Woolworths chief executive Brad Banducci announces retirement as company announces $781m loss
Is that the mining tax which the Gillard government introduced after publicly declaring there would be no carbon tax? That whole saga was perceived as inauthentic behaviour by the electorate and they were punished for it.
are you sure it wasn’t fear of mah jerbs and temporarily embarrassed millionaires voting against their own interest. Gillard was voted out because Australia hates change and especially hates women. We have one of the highest rates DV among similar countries. We fuuuuucking hated her because she was a woman, it had nothing to do with the mining tax or carbon tax.
Pick negative gearing, wealth taxes, free uni whatever we fucking suck.
Also mining tax was separate from the carbon tax you Dill. I misread your comment because I assumed you were smarter than you were.
Yes it did. The “carbon tax” was one of several key issues jumped on by the Coalition to push the idea that Gillard was untrustworthy and inauthentic, which was a big problem for her considering she was seen as having stolen power by orchestrating a coup against a prime minister. She has directly acknowledged this herself. Watch ‘The Killing Season’, it was a massive problem for Labor. The fact that there were other problems for Labor during that election does not mean this was not one of them.
Can you read? I never said they were the same thing. I said the electorate perceived it to be inauthentic behaviour.
No. It is the proposed mining tax where the Rudd government had the temerity of suggesting all that dirt belonged to all of Australia and those massive profits should be shared with the country. It wasn’t even a bill, just raising the topic for discussion.
Then came a very successful (and in hindsight, cheap) media blitz by mining companies against the idea. Which in turn led to the Labor party dropping their leader only two and a half years into his first term.
You’re thinking of the Emissions trading scheme, which the opposition very successfully smeared as a tax. It was never a tax. It was a quota system on the amount of pollution each company would make. It was also deeply flawed, because many of the biggest pollutors got a pass on their emissions.
Even if you want to call it a tax, Labor did not win a mandate from the population to go with just their own platform. They were sent in as a minority government, Australians had directed them to work with other parties like the Greens and their policies. You don’t get to turn around and call that a broken election promise. They did what we told them to do.
The EMS was the spiritual successor to the Rudd government’s mining tax. It was the same thing, as far as the electorate was concerned. As I said in my other reply, it doesn’t matter whether they were technically different or even a tax at all. It matters how the public perceived that saga - Gillard said “no tax” then appeared to introduce a tax. That’s inauthentic as far as voters are concerned.