The Abbott Government

[sydboy007]

From different interviews today with Nick Champion and Richard Myles, I get the impression Labor is softening its stand on the CARBON TAX.

I believe they have seen the light that to delay Abbotts mandate to scrap it will have long term consequences for the Labor Party and will surely be used against them at the next election.

If someone voted for the ALP or Greens after hearing that they would NOT rollover and WOULD vote against the repeal of the carbon ETS, then don't these voters have the right to expect those they voted for to do what they said they would do?

As Tony said in 2007 - The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments.

To think otherwise would seem to mean we live in a democracy once each election day, then a totalitarian regime where the victor has absolute control till the next election.

 

[Julia]

From different interviews today with Nick Champion and Richard Myles, I get the impression Labor is softening its stand on the CARBON TAX.

I believe they have seen the light that to delay Abbotts mandate to scrap it will have long term consequences for the Labor Party and will surely be used against them at the next election.

It's only a few days since the election result and the post election vows from everyone in Labor that they will stop talking about themselves and cease having their discussions in public.
But, lo, here they are already having a public brawl about whether or not to oppose the Coalition's legislation to abolish the carbon tax.

Even without Kevin to muddy the waters with his ego, they still just can't seem to help themselves engaging in self indulgent infighting.

If someone voted for the ALP or Greens after hearing that they would NOT rollover and WOULD vote against the repeal of the carbon ETS, then don't these voters have the right to expect those they voted for to do what they said they would do?

Doesn't matter what they voted for now. They lost. End of story.

As Tony said in 2007 - The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments.

To think otherwise would seem to mean we live in a democracy once each election day, then a totalitarian regime where the victor has absolute control till the next election.

That might be one of Mr Abbott's many statements which he would now like to take back.
The Coalition went to the election on two fundamental issues: abolishing the carbon tax and stopping the boats.
They won. Seems to me that gives them a reasonable expectation to be able to enact legislation accordingly.

Consider Labor's platform, if elected, to get rid of Workchoices. They won. The Coalition rolled over and went along with the abolition of Workchoices.

 

[bunyip]

It's only a few days since the election result and the post election vows from everyone in Labor that they will stop talking about themselves and cease having their discussions in public.
But, lo, here they are already having a public brawl about whether or not to oppose the Coalition's legislation to abolish the carbon tax.

Even without Kevin to muddy the waters with his ego, they still just can't seem to help themselves engaging in self indulgent infighting.

And more signs of Labor disunity with the latest fracas – publicly discussed as per usual – over the issue of choosing a replacement leader under the new rules that Rudd introduced. Labor are said to be in ‘furious disagreement’ over the issue. Steven Conroy has attacked Rudd and labeled his new rules a farce, saying they’ve made Labor a laughing stock and could result in them being without a leader for a month.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...ls-new-labor-leadership-rules-a-farce/4952532

 

[Julia]

And more signs of Labor disunity with the latest fracas – publicly discussed as per usual – over the issue of choosing a replacement leader under the new rules that Rudd introduced. Labor are said to be in ‘furious disagreement’ over the issue. Steven Conroy has attacked Rudd and labeled his new rules a farce, saying they’ve made Labor a laughing stock and could result in them being without a leader for a month.

Yes. Such a short time ago that they all breathlessly rushed to go along with any demands Kevin made as conditions of his return to save them, the above being one. Another example of short term thinking.
A party without a leader for more than a month if it goes to a ballot. Terrific.

 

[MrBurns]

Just watched 20 seconds of the Bill Shorten press conference on the ABC , that was enough, I hope he gets the job because Labor will never get back in if he does,

 

[sydboy007]

Doesn't matter what they voted for now. They lost. End of story.


That might be one of Mr Abbott's many statements which he would now like to take back.
The Coalition went to the election on two fundamental issues: abolishing the carbon tax and stopping the boats.
They won. Seems to me that gives them a reasonable expectation to be able to enact legislation accordingly.

Consider Labor's platform, if elected, to get rid of Workchoices. They won. The Coalition rolled over and went along with the abolition of Workchoices.

The what do you think an opposition is legitimately able to oppose?

It took the coalition quite a while to decide to not oppose the removal of workchoices, and I dare say it had a lot less support in the community than the carbon ETS.

How much do me neuter the right of an opposition to oppose?

 

[Calliope]

Just watched 20 seconds of the Bill Shorten press conference on the ABC , that was enough, I hope he gets the job because Labor will never get back in if he does,

Shorten says Tanya Plibersek will be his deputy if he gets up. Here she is rehearsing her first misogyny speech.

 

[noco]

If someone voted for the ALP or Greens after hearing that they would NOT rollover and WOULD vote against the repeal of the carbon ETS, then don't these voters have the right to expect those they voted for to do what they said they would do?

As Tony said in 2007 - The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments.

To think otherwise would seem to mean we live in a democracy once each election day, then a totalitarian regime where the victor has absolute control till the next election.

Gillard had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax in 2010

"THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMANT I LEAD".

Perhaps you have a short memory.

Tony Abbott went to the 2013 election "I WILL SCRAP THE CARBON TAX".

NOW TELL ME WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT GOT A MANDATE?

 

[sydboy007]

Gillard had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax in 2010

"THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMANT I LEAD".

Perhaps you have a short memory.

Tony Abbott went to the 2013 election "I WILL SCRAP THE CARBON TAX".

NOW TELL ME WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT GOT A MANDATE?

So Tony was wrong to say "The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments"? It was his justification for saying no so often over the last 3 years.

If a political party goes to an election saying they will maintain X in Government or oppose it's repeal in opposition, does it lose any right to oppose if in opposition?

I could accept what you're saying if the Coalition received > 2/3 of the primary vote, but they didn't even receive 50% of the votes, and as many have said on this forum they didn't vote for him because they liked ALL his policies, so of his primary vote how many actually voted for him and wouldn't mind to see the carbon tax remain?

Your argument means no opposition should be considered against DA or PPL either, or are they not high enough up the policy ladder. How "major' does a policy have to be before it's 'wrong" to oppose it? Do we use Tony's time in opposition to see what the limits of acceptable opposition are?

 

[drsmith]

I note the headless Labor opposition is already flip-flopping over the carbon tax.

This must be the greatest policy albatross either major party has saddled upon itself in Australian political history.

 

[noco]

So Tony was wrong to say "The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments"? It was his justification for saying no so often over the last 3 years.

If a political party goes to an election saying they will maintain X in Government or oppose it's repeal in opposition, does it lose any right to oppose if in opposition?

I could accept what you're saying if the Coalition received > 2/3 of the primary vote, but they didn't even receive 50% of the votes, and as many have said on this forum they didn't vote for him because they liked ALL his policies, so of his primary vote how many actually voted for him and wouldn't mind to see the carbon tax remain?

Your argument means no opposition should be considered against DA or PPL either, or are they not high enough up the policy ladder. How "major' does a policy have to be before it's 'wrong" to oppose it? Do we use Tony's time in opposition to see what the limits of acceptable opposition are?

Abbott has demolished the Labor Party with an extra 31 seats so far and has left the Labor Party in chaos.
No leader and no shadow ministers for 4 to 8 weeks.

Albo and Shorten are already saying NO...NO...NO...NO. but many of their cohorts are saying YES...YES...YES...
and these are the members of the Labor Party with any brains.

 

[drsmith]

Abbott has demolished the Labor Party with an extra 31 seats so far and has left the Labor Party in chaos.

The ABC is now forecasting a difference between the two major parties of 34.

It could be more. The pre-polls have been firmly in favour of the Lib candidates for the seats in doubt at least with two Labor seats in Queensland now on the Coalition side of the ledger.

Even Sophie Mirabella is still not completely out of the question in Indi despite that miscount.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/electorates/#seats-in-doubt

 

[stewiejp]

Let's be honest, it wasn't Abbott who left Labor "demolished" - they did that all by themselves... if the Libs had a charismatic leader, the margin would have been greater IMO.

 

[bunyip]

Given the LNP’s barnstorming win in the election last week, I couldn’t resist posting the link below which contains some hilarious predictions from a bloke who should have kept his political opinions to himself back in 2007.

I was particularly amused by his declaration that Rudd’s 2007 election victory ‘
Just as comical was his statement about the ‘unity’ between Rudd and Gillard.

This galah must still be wiping the egg off his face - he has about as much credibility as that intrepid doyen of climate change, Tim Flannery (aka Captain Bulls**t)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/reality_reversed/P40/

 

[bunyip]

Let's be honest, it wasn't Abbott who left Labor "demolished" - they did that all by themselves... if the Libs had a charismatic leader, the margin would have been greater IMO.

I can’t agree that Labor ‘did that all by themselves’. Certainly they gave the Libs plenty of help by in-fighting, lying, reckless spending, the boat people debacle and all their other cockups.
But credit where credit is due – the Libs ran a far superior campaign to Labor, they’ve committed to fixing Labor’s mistakes, and they’ve spent the last three years presenting a united front. It was these factors, combined with Labor’s mistakes, that swept the LNP to power.

I agree that their winning margin would have been even bigger if they had a charismatic leader.

 

[bunyip]

Given the LNP’s barnstorming win in the election last week, I couldn’t resist posting the link below which contains some hilarious predictions from a bloke who should have kept his political opinions to himself back in 2007.

I was particularly amused by his declaration that Rudd’s 2007 election victory ‘

The underlined statemnt above was meant to have the words below in red attached to it.

may mark the end of the Liberal Party

Somehow these words got wiped out of my original post.

 

[Whiskers]

But credit where credit is due – the Libs ran a far superior campaign to Labor, they’ve committed to fixing Labor’s mistakes, and they’ve spent the last three years presenting a united front.

One thing to commit to something, quite another to deliver.

Don't count your chickens... or bask in your glory as government (or staunch LNP supporter) until the job is done... they could easily get egg on their face yet too... if the Indonesian response to their boat policy is any indication.

The LNP is just as capable of imploding as Labor. Here in Qld we've seen plenty of it in the past and it seems the west is experiencing a bit of angst atm. They have the Nationals with increased representation and no doubt looking for more say and power, which potentially would be a moderating force on the far right of the Libs.

 

[IFocus]

Boy oh boy. Imagine if I could post a picture of a fisherman reeling one in. Maybe the humour was a bit dry for you.

LOL I believe thats "Snap"

 

[IFocus]

The what do you think an opposition is legitimately able to oppose?

For Abbott it was every thing why would it be different for Labor

If the Coalition do not hold the majority in the senate then their mandate is to introduce and pass policy to the lower house thats it nothing more Labor didnt get elected Abbott did its up to him convince the senate he has good policy everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish if he wishes to scrap the whole cabon deal then do so but thats not what he said during the election.

A wink and a nod wont do it.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing to commit to something, quite another to deliver.

Don't count your chickens... or bask in your glory as government (or staunch LNP supporter) until the job is done... they could easily get egg on their face yet too... if the Indonesian response to their boat policy is any indication..

Yep long way to go to see whats been elected

The LNP is just as capable of imploding as Labor. Here in Qld we've seen plenty of it in the past and it seems the west is experiencing a bit of angst atm. They have the Nationals with increased representation and no doubt looking for more say and power, which potentially would be a moderating force on the far right of the Libs

You would be talking about the Liberal minority goverment then

 

[Whiskers]

You would be talking about the Liberal minority goverment then

Definitely!

I have plenty of memories of the Nationals imploding on themselves and really getting their back up when the Libs try to tell them to sit down and shut up in their coalition.

So, it's worth remembering that this is a marriage of convenience as was, albeit more informally, Labor and Greens. However, atm it's a much more amicable and mutual policy position, but not entirely based on common ground.

With Barnaby's rise in power and popularity and now deputy leader of the Nationals, the relationship is going to be stretched a bit. He does strike me as standing on his principles more than Abbott who took somewhat of a hollow man position, largely adopting similar policies to Labor for politicial expediency and leaving himself a small political target.

As is often the case, these marriages of convenience are put to the test when in power and especially when the ratio of the elected MP's becomes more disproportionate. I'd guess the Nationals are on the rise atm at the expense of both Labor and Libs. Wait until the policy not to stand candidates against each other breaks down across the whole country again.

People should remember in the early days Barnaby earnt the respect of voters in the senate and overtook Boswell (a Lib rubber stamp) in popularity, but the party refused to promote him and often attempted to gag him.