Here here! ( also from a father,grandfather and great grandfather)and from someone that also voted for the coalalition government for more than 50 years when they WERE something to be trusted and respected.
I find it difficult to comprehend how anybody can regard Kevin Rudd as someone who can be 'trusted and respected', given his continued dishonesty, his grandiose plans on which he's mostly failed to deliver, his incredible stupidity in the illegal immigration issue, and his woeful incompetence on so many issues.
Trainspotter sums him up pretty well in Post 228.
I would rather trust a sewer rat than the Rudd gang.
I find it difficult to comprehend how anybody can regard Kevin Rudd as someone who can be 'trusted and respected', given his continued dishonesty, his grandiose plans on which he's mostly failed to deliver, his incredible stupidity in the illegal immigration issue, and his woeful incompetence on so many issues.
Trainspotter sums him up pretty well in Post 228.
Votes only count when we are having an election.
While in front, the team you're barracking for hasn't won yet. The opposition will however need to lift it's game and quickly.Oh com on...we are in pre election mode...have been for weeks.
Henry review on Sunday and 9 to 12 weeks for that to settle in, along with the health reform conclusion and a few other good news events, then its election time...why do you think they sat on the Henry tax review for 3 months???
Early spring election i would think, ill see if i can find any likely dates?
Woeful Rudd an inept PM
· Andrew Bolt · From Herald Sun · April 13, 2010 7:57PM
KEVIN Rudd spent his first two years in power smashing stuff.
Now, in this election year, he's spending up to $1 billion of your money to fix the damage.
That's right: Rudd is spending at least $1 billion to fix the havoc he's unleashed by handing out free insulation, splurging on overpriced school buildings, relaxing boat people laws, letting in an unsustainable
blah blah blah, spin spin spin, etc etc etc
Amazing gift, that, and you're paying billions for it.
Please do not infringe the copyright of others on ASF.
I see a lot of people reproducing whole articles and/or not posting a link to or identifying the original source of quoted material.
The ASF code of conduct states:
If you are quoting another source you must do two things.
1. Not quote the entire article as this infringes copyright. Please only quote a small portion of it (maximum 10%) as this constitues 'fair use' or 'fair dealing'. See here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
2. Always include a link to the original article. If the article is not on the internet you must specifically refer to the publication (title and issue/date) from which it came.
Posts may be removed or quoted material shortened by myself or one of the site moderators if this rule is ignored.
Thank you all for your co-operation.
Dude you just can do massive cut and pastes like that...please see this thread.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373
Oh and thanks for the spin.
So Gullible
You can call it spin or whatever you like, but I notice you have no answer to it. Normally if someone feels they have solid grounds on which to refute something, they'll outline their reasons and then back their arguments with sound logic and solid reasoning. You have been unable to do so, preferring instead to refer to polls that show Rudd is still in favour with people like you who follow him with blind devotion despite his inept performance.
Sound logic and solid reasoning Heybunyip i doubt anything i could say to you or the rest of the ASF right would be seen as sound logic and solid reasoning....i mean i couldn't even convince calliope that the Coalition defeated the ETS legislation...lol some how he doesn't think that 37 votes actually beats 32 so you can see ive no hope here.
----------------
Ok here's some Sound logic and solid reasoning for ya.....the election betting charts i keep posting point to overwhelming public support for the Rudd Labor Govt, and yet you and the ASF right keep posting pages of arguments and information and articles that point out the aleged failings and bungles of this Govt, and yet week after week and month after month the support is unwavering.
Now the betting and election projections are no illusion, there based on hard numbers and good science (lol just like the ETS was) and so cant be argued against...there fore its safe to call the ASF right and in fact all coalition voters, a large minority...now experience and reasoning leads me to believe that when a minority feels threatened and vulnerable they can react with great venom and hostility....as we have seen here at ASF.
This hostility and delusion in the face of over whelming evidence to the contrary, logically leads me to think that the ASF right is a disillusioned fringe group that feels disenfranchised and threatened by the policy's of a progressive, reformist Labor Govt, and there ranting's here are nothing more than the ranting's of any other fringe group...and not representative of the majority.
Therefore are irrelevant...hows that for Sound logic and solid reasoning.
Sound logic and solid reasoning Heybunyip i doubt anything i could say to you or the rest of the ASF right would be seen as sound logic and solid reasoning....i mean i couldn't even convince calliope that the Coalition defeated the ETS legislation...lol some how he doesn't think that 37 votes actually beats 32 so you can see ive no hope here.
----------------
Ok here's some Sound logic and solid reasoning for ya.....the election betting charts i keep posting point to overwhelming public support for the Rudd Labor Govt, and yet you and the ASF right keep posting pages of arguments and information and articles that point out the aleged failings and bungles of this Govt, and yet week after week and month after month the support is unwavering.
Now the betting and election projections are no illusion, there based on hard numbers and good science (lol just like the ETS was) and so cant be argued against...there fore its safe to call the ASF right and in fact all coalition voters, a large minority...now experience and reasoning leads me to believe that when a minority feels threatened and vulnerable they can react with great venom and hostility....as we have seen here at ASF.
This hostility and delusion in the face of over whelming evidence to the contrary, logically leads me to think that the ASF right is a disillusioned fringe group that feels disenfranchised and threatened by the policy's of a progressive, reformist Labor Govt, and there ranting's here are nothing more than the ranting's of any other fringe group...and not representative of the majority.
Therefore are irrelevant...hows that for Sound logic and solid reasoning.
While in front, the team you're barracking for hasn't won yet. The opposition will however need to lift it's game and quickly.
It's been a woeful performance so far from both sides.
I agree, IFocus, including the potential for Scott Morrison who is probably the Libs' best performer at present.The opposition is the reason Labor are going so well in the betting. The real issue with Liberals is the fact there is so much dead wood still hanging around from Howard's cabinet Abbott being number one.
They bring all that baggage along with them that loss the Liberals the last election.
When you have some one putting themselves up for PM who cannot even keep their composure in public when dealing with Gillard of all people well you are not fit for the office.
Abbott has done the Liberals good service to pick up the polls but Australians wont cop him as PM.
Looking along the front bench and its bare of any potential but some from the Liberals have hope for Scott Morrison still he is a few years experience away.
Labor had the same problem after Keating i.e. Crean and Kim Beasley.
Until the power base moves from the current Howard clique its opposition for the Liberals I think no matter what Labor gets up to.
The mechanics of the constitution on early elections are clear in broad outline. The House of Representatives has variable terms, the Senate fixed staggered terms. Where the two chambers are in conflict, Section 57 of the Constitution is a deadlock resolution provision allowing for a double dissolution of both the House and the full Senate.
The current House was elected on 24 November 2007. Its term is for three years timed from its first sitting after the election, 12 February 2008. So if the government does not call an earlier election, the House of Representatives will expire through the effluxion of time on 11 February 2011. Under the timetable for elections set out in the Constitution and the Electoral Act, the last possible date for a House election is 16 April 2011.
However, the government can request a House election at any time. The government could request an early House election as a way of claiming a new mandate to overcome Senate obstruction. All the Prime Minister would have to do is request an early election stating his reasons, and the Governor-General would almost certainly assent to the election.
But the Governor-General could only issue writs for a House of Representatives election. The Constitution would prevent the issue of writs for a half-Senate election. Section 13 of the Constitution states that writs for a half-Senate election can only be issued in the last year of a Senate's term. This means that writs for the next half-Senate election cannot be issued before 1 July 2010. The first possible date for a half-Senate election is 7 August 2010. There cannot be a normal election for the House combined with half the Senate before 7 August 2010, only a double dissolution or separate House election.
On a technical note, the fixed Senate terms only apply for the 72 State Senators. The terms of the four Territory Senators are provided for in legislation. Their terms are maximum three years, with the terms tied to the terms of the House of Representatives. An early House election would also be for the four Territory Senators, though it would almost certainly return one Labor and one Coalition Senator for each Territory, the result that has occurred at every election since 1975.
The only way that the government can change the Senate numbers before 1 July 2011 is to call a double dissolution. A double dissolution is a deadlock provision designed to allow the House of Representatives to overcome the blocking power of the Senate. It allows the government to force the whole Senate to the electorate at once, breaking the Senate's fixed term and changing the Senate numbers.
There is little doubt the government would find this option attractive. The Coalition currently has 37 Senators, Labor 32, with 5 Greens, Senator Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding. On current numbers, the Coalition need to lure only one of the cross-bench Senators across the aisle to block legislation.
A double dissolution would almost certainly reduce the Coalition to 32-34 Senators, even less if current opinion polls are to be believed. Labor would probably gain Senators and stand a strong chance of gaining a majority of seats in conjunction with the Greens. Senator Xenophon would be re-elected, perhaps with a colleague from his ticket, while Senator Fielding would be unlikely to win re-election, ending his term which currently runs until June 2011.
However, by reducing the quota for election from 14.3% to 7.7%, a double dissolution could also bring into the Senate a rag-tag collection of unknown Senators from micro-parties, elected thanks to the vagaries of the Senate's preferential voting system.
The double dissolution provisions are contained in Section 57 of the Constitution. It states that a bill must first be passed by the House and then be rejected, fail to pass or be unacceptably amended by the Senate. After a period of three months, the same bill must be passed by the House and then again be blocked, fail to pass or be unacceptably amended by the Senate. This provides a trigger which allows the Prime Minister to request a DD. The trigger does not have to be used at once, but must be used before six months from the end of the term of the House. So the announcement of a dissolution for a DD must take place by 11 August 2010, meaning that a double dissolution could take place as late as 16 October 2010.
After a DD, the government must again present the legislation, and if it is again rejected by the Senate, then a joint sitting of the two Houses can be called under Section 57 at which legislation can be passed by both chambers voting together. The only time a joint sitting under this provision has been held was in 1974 when the Whitlam government passed four major pieces of legislation that had previously been blocked by the Senate.
The 'Alcopops' legislation passed the first test of the double dissolution mechanism on 18 March when it was defeated in the Senate. By trying to pass the legislation again after 18 June, the government meets the three month delay requirement of Section 57. If the 'Alcopops' bill is then defeated in the Senate, the government has a trigger to request the Governor-General to issue writs for a double dissolution. It is a trigger the government does not have to use at once but could put away to be brought out from time to time as a threat to the Opposition in the Senate, or to unveil for real in asking the Governor-General for a double dissolution.
Again it should be stressed that in re-introducing this legislation in a manner that allows it to become a double dissolution trigger does not mean the government is about to call an election. Introducing the 'Alcopos' bill in this manner increases the pressure on the Senate to pass the legislation, using the threat of an early election to force a legislative 'blink' from the Senate.
Also, if the government does achieve a double dissolution trigger, it does not mean it is about to call an early election. Yes the government is well ahead in the opinion polls. Yes the budget reveals that the economy may be in a worse position in the second half of next year when the government is due to face the electorate. But we have seen in the past that governments that call early elections have seen enormous opinion poll leads disappear as an election forces voters to focus on the real choices at hand.
An additional problem with an early election is the fact that redistributions are currently under way in both New South Wales and Queensland. This does not make an early election impossible, but does make it administratively messy.
Given an election in September/October 2010 has always been the government's preferred option, having a double dissolution trigger may actually be a useful option for the government. A double dissolution in October 2010 may be a preferable option to a normal House and half-Senate election.
Holding a double dissolution rather than a normal half-Senate election may give the Labor Party a better position in the Senate. No doubt some Labor number-crunchers have already looked at that option. But more importantly, a double dissolution would change the Senate at once, where under a half-Senate election, Labor would still be at the mercies of Senator Fielding and the Opposition through until June 2011.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?