Why? Because they are liars and are often caught out doing so. Tony Abbott himself has admitted he lies if what he is saying has not been carefully scripted for him. Anyone who votes for a party with him at the head, knowing this is condoning dishonesty and that is immoral. Anyone who chooses to remain wilfully ignorant of Tony Abbott’s lies, is themself, dishonest.
Tony Abbott admits he lies.
The biggest lie of all uttered by the LNP is their direct action policy. Half of the LNP are climate change deniers, and more than half of the shadow cabinet responsible for environment related portfolios are deniers. Why have a policy for a problem you don’t accept exists? It is solely to con voters. Plain and simple. The direct action policy has enough green words to appease conservative voters who do think about the environment and it is weak enough not to offend the lunatic fringe on the far right.
Many conservatives and a number of swinging voters are convinced that Malcolm Turnbull would be a better leader of the Coalition than Tony Abbott and as a leader he probably would be however, he is also a liar, and here is why. He, like the rest of the Coalition are pushing the dodgy “direct action” policy even though in 2009, he said this…
Climate change is a global problem. The planet is warming because of the growing level of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. If this trend continues then truly catastrophic consequences will ensue, from rising sea levels to reduced water availability to more heatwaves and fires. In December, just a few weeks ago, we had confirmation from three leading scientific organisations—the UK Met Office and, in the United States, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—that the past decade, the years from 2000 to 2009, was the hottest since record-keeping began, even hotter than the decade before which was the second-hottest decade on record and the decade before that which was the third hottest on record….
…Climate change policy has to recognise these real risks, these real threats to the safety of our planet. It is an exercise in risk management and no reasonable person could regard the risk as being so low that no action was warranted. That has been the view of political leaders for many years from both sides of politics, none more eloquently than Margaret Thatcher herself. Prudence demands that we act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and do so in a way that is consistent with and promotes global action to do the same. Right now both sides of politics are agreed that Australia should, regardless of whether any international agreement is reached, reduce our emissions by 2020 so that they equal a five per cent cut from 2000 levels. This is a 21 per cent cut from the 2020 business-as-usual levels. Both sides of politics agree that, depending on the nature of the international agreement reached, greater cuts of 15 or 25 per cent should be made….
…All of us in this House know that industries and businesses, attended by an army of lobbyists, are particularly persuasive and all too effective at getting their sticky fingers into the taxpayers’ pocket. Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale, and there will always be a temptation for projects to be selected for their political appeal. In short, having the government pay for emissions abatement, as opposed to the polluting industries themselves, is a slippery slope which can only result in higher taxes and more costly and less effective abatement of emissions.
So, while Turnbull admits he accepts the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change and the cause of that change, he is spruiking a policy that by his own admission, he knows won’t really work. Worse, he rubbishes the ALP’s policy which is an ETS which he says is actually the best way of dealing with the problem. That is dishonest and a vote for him is immoral. His full speech is here.