Are you really so vacuous as to change your vote over plastic bags? [With Poll]

Pork Hunt said :

c_c said :

@ Porkhunt,

“Wildfires
Bushfires that are lit accidentally, lit by arson or as a result of a lightning strike, and burn unchecked, are called ‘wildfires’.”

And then there’s sub classifications about whether it’s forrest-fire or grass-fire.

Source: CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/BushfireTypes.aspx

In Austraya it’s called a “forest”, not “forrest”.
Further, I don’t give a flying fcuk what the CSIRO call anything. In this country, fires in the bush, i.e. “bushfires” have been called “bushfires” since time immemorial.
Cheers cobber.

OK so we’ve established Real Australians ™ only use the term Bushfire ™. Doesn’t change the fact that fires cause significant problems in catchment areas as was the case in 2003 and that securing water supply should be the upmost priority of any authority.

Irrespective of whether you subcribe to existing climate cycles or projected climate cycles, anyone who thinks water won’t be an issue in an expanding Canberra, or Australia, or the rest of the world for that matter, has their head buried deeply in a dry creek bed.

SnapperJack said :

The power of RiotACT or is Mr Gillespie now Zed’s policy advisor? Perhaps both. Up until the recent posting here by Mr G the Libs said they wouldn’t repeal the plastic bag ban. Along came Mr G and wullah! A backflip by Zed – announced on 2CC this morning – and now a clear choice at the election.

Have we ever seen Mr G and Mr Z in the same room?

c_c said :

Keep digging yourself a bigger hole milkman.

“The receipts also show that the Canberra Liberals declared $585,000 in donations, gifts and rental payments from its property holdings, down from the $657,810 it declared in 2009-10.

The declarations show the party has made progress with its bank overdraft, reducing it to $102,000 from $136,000 the previous year.“

Seems debt works fine to keep the Liberal Party itself afloat, it’s only a dirty word when debt is instead used for public benefit and infrastructure.

Funny that the Libs are struggling to pay off their overdraft too, howzat for financial management.

Source: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/act-greens-funding-keeps-growing-20120131-1t864.html

Once again, throwing mud at the local Libs doesn’t help you. I’m not a fan of the local libs!! I even said they were no better previously! But none of this changes the fact that local Labor have done a crap job.

c_c said :

milkman said :

ACT Labor couldn’t run a chook raffle, much less manage a large building project without massive cost overrrun and time delays.

Kate Carnell + Bruce Stadium + Cost Overruns + Vote of No Confidence = doh.

c_c trying to divert attention from the current ACT Labor govt numerous failures = doh.

c_c said :

CSIRO = educated scientists and researchers.
Porkhunt = not

c_c = tiresome Uniboy Google-monkey

…(perhaps not surprisingly) the strongest ACTUAL policy announced in ACT politics so far in the lead up to the election… still… it’ll be nice to have free bin liners back and not have to pay for them…

Pork Hunt said :

So are you a member of your local “wildfire” brigade?

We have certain terms and terminology in Australia and wildfire is no substitute for bushfire.

There is no fire fighting organisation in Australia that incorporates the phrase ‘Bushfire Brigade’ in their name.

NSW Rural Fire Service
Country Fire Authority
Country Fire Service
Tasmanian Fire Service
ACT Rural Fire Service
NT Fire and Rescue
Qld Fire and Rescue

Even the Fire Brigades disagree with you:

For example, one component of the NSW RFS Crew Leader training is ‘Crew Leader Wildfire’ – which includes the competencies: ‘Suppress Wildfire’ and ‘Suppress Urban Fire’

A Group Leader then receives further training in ‘Advanced wildfire behaviour’ and ‘Advanced wildfire suppression’

The libs ain’t dumb, but the voters are. The libs come out with ‘policies’ on issues like this because they know they will get a few votes out of it and make a few headlines. But in the grand scheme of things anyone voting because they are over turning a silly bag ban needs their head read. There are more important issues, however the libs don’t want them discussed as it will show they have no real plan.

Libs in NSW did the same thing, targeted so called issues such as speed cameras where there is community resentment, but once in power they are no different. However their transport policies in general went unchecked and are coming up short.

c_c said :

CSIRO = educated scientists and researchers.
Porkhunt = not

So are you a member of your local “wildfire” brigade?

We have certain terms and terminology in Australia and wildfire is no substitute for bushfire.

Equally abhorrent are the American terms “straightaway” (a piece of straight motor racing track, thank you Darryl Beattie) and “touch down” (a method of scoring in their bullshit footy code) which have made their way into Aussie language.

CSIRO = educated scientists and researchers.
Porkhunt = not

Bag ban? LOL!

(I shop in Queanbeyan) 🙂

milkman said :

ACT Labor couldn’t run a chook raffle, much less manage a large building project without massive cost overrrun and time delays.

Kate Carnell + Bruce Stadium + Cost Overruns + Vote of No Confidence = doh.

c_c said :

@ Porkhunt,

“Wildfires
Bushfires that are lit accidentally, lit by arson or as a result of a lightning strike, and burn unchecked, are called ‘wildfires’.”

And then there’s sub classifications about whether it’s forrest-fire or grass-fire.

Source: CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/BushfireTypes.aspx

In Austraya it’s called a “forest”, not “forrest”.
Further, I don’t give a flying fcuk what the CSIRO call anything. In this country, fires in the bush, i.e. “bushfires” have been called “bushfires” since time immemorial.
Cheers cobber.

As ridiculous as this is, I’m still going to vote for these monkeys simply because the present mob must go.

“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos”

Well, well, well….

Looks like this one’s been an own-goal for the Greenies:

[i]‘‘Britain’s Environmental Protection Agency found that shoppers would have to use the same cotton bag every working day for a year to have a lesser impact than a lightweight plastic bag,’’[/i]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/libs-push-for-bag-ban-results-promising-to-overturn-ban-if-elected-20120805-23oa4.html

[i]‘‘The Productivity Commission found that ‘based on the evidence available to the Commission, it appears that the Australian, State and Territory Governments do not have a sound case for proceeding with their proposed phase out of plastic retail carry bags’.‘‘[/i]

And according to Miranda Devine in today’s Daily Telegraph,

[i]”The results in South Australia show the ban there may actually have caused worse pollution. Clean Up Australia Day last year found people were dumping more plastic bags on the state than they did the previous year. Even worse, they are now dumping the reusable imported Chinese-made heavy gauge “green” bags _ which Peter Garrett used to call “canvas” but which are really made of another type of plastic, polypropylene.
Each one equates to 1000 polyethylene bags and, unlike the old bags, they cannot be recycled easily.
In fact, the old bags may even be eco-friendly in solid landfill, according to a 2006 cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission, because of their “stabilising qualities, leachate minimisation and minimising (of) greenhouse-gas emissions”.
What’s more, since most of us recycle supermarket plastic bags as bin liners, lunch bags, footy-boot carriers and dog-poo holders, we will just have to buy more expensive plastic bags to do the same job.
Lo and behold, when South Australia banned plastic bags in 2009, the sale of Glad plastic bin liners in the state went through the roof to double the national average.”[/i]

In the current environment where the rightards will manufacture any opportunity to further their money-grubbing rape of the planet, I’d say the last thing we need are “environmental” laws which are not evidence-based and are instead based on pure ideology to satisfy the pseudo-Green communists’ lust for compulsion over their fellow-citizens.

@ Porkhunt,

“Wildfires
Bushfires that are lit accidentally, lit by arson or as a result of a lightning strike, and burn unchecked, are called ‘wildfires’.”

And then there’s sub classifications about whether it’s forrest-fire or grass-fire.

Source: CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/BushfireTypes.aspx

1. The slowness and ill planning of the land release
2. Public Transport
3. Entertainment including the poorly implemented restraunt red signs (Are these no longer happening?)
4. Public Transport
5. Killing of the citys carparks with no public transport
6. Pretty much nothing is done over the petrol prices, Canberra is getting screwed.
7. Airport and GDE planning.. (whats that you say?)
8. Health statistics fudgedruggery.
9. Stupid policies to force people to buy particular types of plastic bags rather than paper (Paper really does grow in tree’s and plastic’s do not)

The power of RiotACT or is Mr Gillespie now Zed’s policy advisor? Perhaps both. Up until the recent posting here by Mr G the Libs said they wouldn’t repeal the plastic bag ban. Along came Mr G and wullah! A backflip by Zed – announced on 2CC this morning – and now a clear choice at the election.

Keep digging yourself a bigger hole milkman.

“The receipts also show that the Canberra Liberals declared $585,000 in donations, gifts and rental payments from its property holdings, down from the $657,810 it declared in 2009-10.

The declarations show the party has made progress with its bank overdraft, reducing it to $102,000 from $136,000 the previous year.“

Seems debt works fine to keep the Liberal Party itself afloat, it’s only a dirty word when debt is instead used for public benefit and infrastructure.

Funny that the Libs are struggling to pay off their overdraft too, howzat for financial management.

Source: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/act-greens-funding-keeps-growing-20120131-1t864.html

c_c said :

rhino said :

So you seem to be saying that because labour spend heaps of money on things that someone recommends to them, and get into debt which we pay interest to banks on and get nothing for…that they are superior. And your example is that they didn’t spend billions and run up debt in the 90s on a dam, which would be benefiting us today how? Everything is a cost vs benefit balance. In the 90s there was no serious drought in canberra. Today our dams are full and have been for a while now. They were getting low for a little while but we managed fine. Not the best example of them doing something wrong. What about the years while we were actually in drought and labor didn’t build a dam? It would have seemed more urgent then.

Billions, dams full, run up debt? What reality do you exist in?
It’s millions, the dams are not always full, and debt is only a dirty word if you’re a Liberal stooge.

There was a massive drought in the 80s, another from the late 90s through to the mid late 00s.

There have been at least 4 massive wildfires in the ACT region (fires put demands on water and put catchments at risk).

The ACT population has been growing consistently and is still growing, as has Queanbeyan, which is about to grow even further as Googong goes ahead.

Googong Dam is built in a rain shadow severely affecting inflows, and is much more expensive to extract water from due to extra treatment.

The existing Cotter Dam was structurally lacking, and a serious problem was found with Corin which continues to be monitored but has been identified as the most likely failure cause of that dam.

ACT needed a new dam, this dam is built to a million year flood standard and the structure is designed to last well over a century.

It this fear of investment, particularly by the Liberals, that has created the infrastructure bottlenecks in the economy we’re having to fix now.

Hey mate, they’re called bushfires in Austraya….
Cheers cobber.

c_c said :

rhino said :

So you seem to be saying that because labour spend heaps of money on things that someone recommends to them, and get into debt which we pay interest to banks on and get nothing for…that they are superior. And your example is that they didn’t spend billions and run up debt in the 90s on a dam, which would be benefiting us today how? Everything is a cost vs benefit balance. In the 90s there was no serious drought in canberra. Today our dams are full and have been for a while now. They were getting low for a little while but we managed fine. Not the best example of them doing something wrong. What about the years while we were actually in drought and labor didn’t build a dam? It would have seemed more urgent then.

Billions, dams full, run up debt? What reality do you exist in?
It’s millions, the dams are not always full, and debt is only a dirty word if you’re a Liberal stooge.

There was a massive drought in the 80s, another from the late 90s through to the mid late 00s.

There have been at least 4 massive wildfires in the ACT region (fires put demands on water and put catchments at risk).

The ACT population has been growing consistently and is still growing, as has Queanbeyan, which is about to grow even further as Googong goes ahead.

Googong Dam is built in a rain shadow severely affecting inflows, and is much more expensive to extract water from due to extra treatment.

The existing Cotter Dam was structurally lacking, and a serious problem was found with Corin which continues to be monitored but has been identified as the most likely failure cause of that dam.

ACT needed a new dam, this dam is built to a million year flood standard and the structure is designed to last well over a century.

It this fear of investment, particularly by the Liberals, that has created the infrastructure bottlenecks in the economy we’re having to fix now.

ACT Labor couldn’t run a chook raffle, much less manage a large building project without massive cost overrrun and time delays.

c_c said :

and debt is only a dirty word if you’re a Liberal stooge.

Wrong. Debt is a dirty word when you’re one of those people who have to pay it back. You know, people who pay more tax than they receive in govt handouts (unlike most Labor voters).

The only stooge here is you.

rhino said :

So you seem to be saying that because labour spend heaps of money on things that someone recommends to them, and get into debt which we pay interest to banks on and get nothing for…that they are superior. And your example is that they didn’t spend billions and run up debt in the 90s on a dam, which would be benefiting us today how? Everything is a cost vs benefit balance. In the 90s there was no serious drought in canberra. Today our dams are full and have been for a while now. They were getting low for a little while but we managed fine. Not the best example of them doing something wrong. What about the years while we were actually in drought and labor didn’t build a dam? It would have seemed more urgent then.

Billions, dams full, run up debt? What reality do you exist in?
It’s millions, the dams are not always full, and debt is only a dirty word if you’re a Liberal stooge.

There was a massive drought in the 80s, another from the late 90s through to the mid late 00s.

There have been at least 4 massive wildfires in the ACT region (fires put demands on water and put catchments at risk).

The ACT population has been growing consistently and is still growing, as has Queanbeyan, which is about to grow even further as Googong goes ahead.

Googong Dam is built in a rain shadow severely affecting inflows, and is much more expensive to extract water from due to extra treatment.

The existing Cotter Dam was structurally lacking, and a serious problem was found with Corin which continues to be monitored but has been identified as the most likely failure cause of that dam.

ACT needed a new dam, this dam is built to a million year flood standard and the structure is designed to last well over a century.

It this fear of investment, particularly by the Liberals, that has created the infrastructure bottlenecks in the economy we’re having to fix now.

davo101 said :

rhino said :

So whether you are doing the self serve or going to a checkout, it is wasting a fair bit more time handling bags.

I note that you are annoyed with having to pay for your shopping bags but seem to be unconcerned about the fact the supermarket now gets you to do the checkout for free.

That’s right. I could go to a checkout or do the self serve. It works for me. I have the choice. They can save some money on staffing and I can skip a long queue at the expense of putting things in bags myself. It saves me time overall. If it doesn’t then I can opt for the checkout. Whichever saves me time overall.

Mr Gillespie said :

Corbell, what you say in your press release, this has got nothing to do with the environment,

THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF GROCERY SHOPPERS IN CANBERRA!!!

heh heh. That is a classic.

I never assumed that plastic bags was a human right.

davo101 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

davo101 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

And the dams are all 100% full anyway.

Yes, because we should design our water supply system on the assumption of the continuing occurrence of once-in-a-lifetime back-to-back La Ninas.

Alternatively you could read the context by looking at what was being responded to. Of course we need water security, but there are multiple aspects of how that can be achieved.

The context was responding to the question asking why the Liberals didn’t build the dam in the 90s when they were told it was required. So what exactly was your point then?

So you seem to be saying that because labour spend heaps of money on things that someone recommends to them, and get into debt which we pay interest to banks on and get nothing for…that they are superior. And your example is that they didn’t spend billions and run up debt in the 90s on a dam, which would be benefiting us today how? Everything is a cost vs benefit balance. In the 90s there was no serious drought in canberra. Today our dams are full and have been for a while now. They were getting low for a little while but we managed fine. Not the best example of them doing something wrong. What about the years while we were actually in drought and labor didn’t build a dam? It would have seemed more urgent then.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the standard for the ACT government is low haha. Lower than the federal government I’d say. Both parties are better in the federal government. There isn’t too much that the ACT government is actually responsible for though. It’s mostly roads and hospitals. The roads are similar with either party in power and the hospitals seem reasonably similar. The main issues are when they invest money in something big like the GDE and it goes quite wrong. It is at least operational with 2 lanes now finally, we just had to pay a lot more for it.

rhino said :

So whether you are doing the self serve or going to a checkout, it is wasting a fair bit more time handling bags.

I note that you are annoyed with having to pay for your shopping bags but seem to be unconcerned about the fact the supermarket now gets you to do the checkout for free.

Rhino #29: +1

This is a bit of a loaded question. If you answer yes, you are confessing to being vacuous.

It does annoy me having to pay 15c for a bag if I buy a few cheap items that I can’t quite carry in my hand on the way somewhere. And having to buy more rubbish bags now also is a bit of a pain. The inconvenience isn’t just the money either. Even if you just pay for a bag each time and maximise your convenience, you still have to manually hook on each bag individually now. You used to just open a bag from the set hanging up, fill that and move it to one side and open the next. So whether you are doing the self serve or going to a checkout, it is wasting a fair bit more time handling bags. Time is money also. Fair bit of wastage of time and money in our economy from those million (or however many) shopping trips per week.

The most annoying part though, is how much of a waste of time it is. I mean you can argue that there are bigger issues or that shopping is only a small part of your life, but that is exactly why I’d ask why they are sticking their nose into this in the first place. It doesn’t appear to reduce overall plastic, especially since the bags use triple the amount of plastic now and the people who reuse their bags are generally the same old people who did previously anyway. Incursions of the government into our private lives without good justification is a reason for concern for me. They should stick to their primary purpose and responsibilities and stop trying to be special.

Corbell, what you say in your press release, this has got nothing to do with the environment,

THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF GROCERY SHOPPERS IN CANBERRA!!!

arescarti42 said :

The thing I find totally hilarious about the whole ridiculous argument surrounding plastic bag legislation is that it is only plastic bags below a certain thickness are illegal.

It’s not even that, if your bag meets AS4736 it can be as thin as you like.

The thing I find totally hilarious about the whole ridiculous argument surrounding plastic bag legislation is that it is only plastic bags below a certain thickness are illegal. Supermarkets aren’t charging 15c for plastic bags because the nasty government has made giving them away for free is illegal, they haven’t. Supermarkets charge for bags because they want to.

Does anyone else suspect that Colesworth and the like will be perfectly happy to continue charging for bags even if the legislation is repealed?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

davo101 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

And the dams are all 100% full anyway.

Yes, because we should design our water supply system on the assumption of the continuing occurrence of once-in-a-lifetime back-to-back La Ninas.

Alternatively you could read the context by looking at what was being responded to. Of course we need water security, but there are multiple aspects of how that can be achieved.

The context was responding to the question asking why the Liberals didn’t build the dam in the 90s when they were told it was required. So what exactly was your point then?

HenryBG said :

So the new bags cause global warming.

Well done Greens.

Yeap, it’s not the 7.7 billion tonnes of coal or the 4.5 billion tonnes of oil that we burn each year, it’s the plastic bags.

davo101 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

And the dams are all 100% full anyway.

Yes, because we should design our water supply system on the assumption of the continuing occurrence of once-in-a-lifetime back-to-back La Ninas.

Alternatively you could read the context by looking at what was being responded to. Of course we need water security, but there are multiple aspects of how that can be achieved.

DrKoresh said :

chewy14 said :

I like the plastic bag ban because the ones you have to buy are much sturdier and long lasting than the old flimsy free ones.

Sure that doesn’t help the environment any but it wasn’t meant to, was it?

Actually, it does help the enivironment. The old plastic bags would decompose and release greenhouse gases before they had a chance to be sealed in landfill.

davo101 said :

DrKoresh said :

Actually, it does help the environment. The old plastic bags would decompose and release greenhouse gases before they had a chance to be sealed in landfill.

Err no. The old bags don’t decompose, in the standard test they do absolutely nothing suggesting an infinite life. However in the real-world they’ll breakdown under the action of UV into microscopic granules and get spread around the environment. New biodegradable bags are designed to break down eventually to CO2 and water.

So the new bags cause global warming.

Well done Greens.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Haha incredible. Are there really a load of mr gillespies out there or just a vocal few. If this is what you are running your election campaign on, I can’t see you getting very far.

Maybe Zed *is* Mr G??? Hahahaha!

If the regulation of plastic bags is such a non-issue, do we really need to waste public funds reviewing it, particularly so soon after it was implemented? Forget the review and put the resultant savings towards the Budget bottom line – that might pay a few days’ worth of interest on the $318m deficit projected for 2012-13.

DrKoresh said :

Actually, it does help the environment. The old plastic bags would decompose and release greenhouse gases before they had a chance to be sealed in landfill.

Err no. The old bags don’t decompose, in the standard test they do absolutely nothing suggesting an infinite life. However in the real-world they’ll breakdown under the action of UV into microscopic granules and get spread around the environment. New biodegradable bags are designed to break down eventually to CO2 and water.

I couldn’t vote for the ACT Liberals, not over this minor issue, but because the Policy Platform they are presenting us for this election is dated 2004. This 8 year old policy platform is the same, and now outdated platform, they have used and re-used at 3 elections. I don’t think they are serious about winning this election, or serious about governing the ACT.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

And the dams are all 100% full anyway.

Yes, because we should design our water supply system on the assumption of the continuing occurrence of once-in-a-lifetime back-to-back La Ninas.

chewy14 said :

Sure that doesn’t help the environment any but it wasn’t meant to, was it?

Don’t know, but I have observed that the rafts of white plastic that would appear in the gross pollutant traps in the drains around North Canberra, after a decent rain event, seemed to have disappeared. So I’m guessing there are less of these bags blowing around than there were before. Does this “help the environment”? Makes it look a bit tidier.

chewy14 said :

I like the plastic bag ban because the ones you have to buy are much sturdier and long lasting than the old flimsy free ones.

Sure that doesn’t help the environment any but it wasn’t meant to, was it?

Actually, it does help the enivironment. The old plastic bags would decompose and release greenhouse gases before they had a chance to be sealed in landfill.

The issue isn’t plastic bags per se – the issue is poorly conceived, badly implemented and counter-productive policy.

But this is par for the course for the Greens, so it wouldn’t change my vote, as I wouldn’t have voted for them anyway. But it is serious enough to make me reconsider voting for anyone that forms an alliance with them.

c_c said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

c_c said :

There is no party more vacuous, backward and lacking in inspiration than the Canberra Liberals.

Except for the local Laborites. At least the Greens show some committment and passion, even though many of their ideas and policies are stupid.

Women and children’s hospital would say the Laborites can deliver something at least.
They’re also building a new dam, something the Libs were warned of a need to build back in the nineties but didn’t.

Yes… and what a great decision it was to build that dam! How much has the budget blown out to now, $405 million? That’s a little more than the $120 million it was supposed to cost.

c_c said :

Women and children’s hospital would say the Laborites can deliver something at least.

Yes, but can we trust the figures about cost and outcomes?

c_c said :

They’re also building a new dam, something the Libs were warned of a need to build back in the nineties but didn’t.

And the dams are all 100% full anyway.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying the Libs are any better, just that our local council isn’t exactly a paragon of achievement.

I like the plastic bag ban because the ones you have to buy are much sturdier and long lasting than the old flimsy free ones.

Sure that doesn’t help the environment any but it wasn’t meant to, was it?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

c_c said :

There is no party more vacuous, backward and lacking in inspiration than the Canberra Liberals.

Except for the local Laborites. At least the Greens show some committment and passion, even though many of their ideas and policies are stupid.

Women and children’s hospital would say the Laborites can deliver something at least.
They’re also building a new dam, something the Libs were warned of a need to build back in the nineties but didn’t.

This is what the Libs call policy.

It ain’t going to sway my vote either way. I used to reuse the old style plastic bags, and it’s a little annoying that they are no longer given out as a matter of course, and I’m not a fan of the new style of plastic bags wollies sell because they can’t be sealed as easily or as well as the old style.

That said it’s hardly a big inconvenience to me, and the 75c the new style plastic bags have added to the weekly shop (assuming 5 of them and that you didn’t go to IGA which still give out free plastic bags) is hardly a massive strain on the shopping budget when your potentially spending $200 on food and other items.

I’d say that if paying 15c for shopping bags is a true concern where by it’s the only thing which will sway you from voting between one party or the other, gee you live a good life.

c_c said :

There is no party more vacuous, backward and lacking in inspiration than the Canberra Liberals.

Except for the local Laborites. At least the Greens show some committment and passion, even though many of their ideas and policies are stupid.

I got over the horrors of no free plastic bags about ohhhh five seconds after it all began.

Haha incredible. Are there really a load of mr gillespies out there or just a vocal few. If this is what you are running your election campaign on, I can’t see you getting very far.

Is vaccuous even more vacuous than vacuous?

Yes,I know I’m unbearable.

So are the Libs recoiling from any of the statements contained in the following websites?
For goodness sake, let’s just move on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-11-26/act-opposition-seeks-trial-bag-levy/1515082

http://norquestbags.blogspot.com.au/2004/11/world-may-be-passing-us-by-while-we.html

http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2003/week13/4764.htm

There is no party more vacuous, backward and lacking in inspiration than the Canberra Liberals.

There top two stories on their website with less than 3mths to the election, is crippling carbon costs for Norfolk Island, and bringing back plastic bags.

Which is unsurprising, their policies are threadbare.

Cheaper sports ground fees, upgrades to sports grounds, cheaper rego, supporting veterans (federal matter anyway) and a great new red tape organisation with shades of Rhodium.

At least try and give us an alternative.