The Abbott Government

[Julia]

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

Nonsense. There were many many bills which received the Coalition's assent. It's only those over which dissent arise that the media bring to our attention.
Try to remember that the main focus when the Coalition lost power was Workchoices. They accepted that they had lost the election which was largly fought on this issue, and went along with its abolition.
Try not to rewrite history, IFocus.

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.

Is there any chance of your writing in sentences?
To say "everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish" is simply a reflection of your own wishes, absolutely not a reflection of the broad view across much of the electorate.
He won wide support for scrapping the ridiculous tax which has made Australia non-competitive with most of its trading partners, caused adversity to business, and achieved nothing in terms of 'climate change'.

 

[Julia]

This 'letter to Joe Hockey' by Jessica Irvine seems right on target to me.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l&utm_content=418858&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=

 

[bunyip]

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

I expressed no opinion on whether he’ll be able to deliver on his commitments.
My comments were in relation to the factors which, in my opinion, helped Abbot to win the election. One of these was that he committed to fixing Labor’s stuff-ups such as the carbon tax and the illegal boat people debacle.

Don't count your chickens...

I’m not counting any chickens – I’ve seen enough governments come and go to know that they deliver on some of their promises, fail to deliver on others. Abbot will be no different.

or bask in your glory as government (or staunch LNP supporter) until the job is done...

The only glory I’m basking in is the defeat of the incompetent, lying, dysfunctional Labor government that has plagued Australia for the last six years.

 

[sydboy007]

Thumbs up to Mrs Bishop deciding not to overspend taxpayers money on her upcoming trip to NYC.

Why a Govt department would even think you need to send someone in first class is beyond me. The quality of J class these days is good enough for pretty much anyone, and most Govt ministers gain access to the QF Chairmans lounge as well so the majority of the perks of an F fare would be pointless.

Lets hope this is a taste of Government showing it's serious about living within its means.

 

[Whiskers]

A note on so called "Mandates" that politicians and their supporters often get carried away with.

It's easy to get carried away with populism after an election. Rudd, Gillard and Abbot (or at least his supporters) have made much hype about their 'mandate'. While Rudd and Abbott at least won a majority of the lower House, Gillard couldn't even achieve that but felt she had a mandate to do what she considered without discussing with the electorate and even reversing her stated policy, in the best interests of all of us... all self serving self-righteousness.

But even an outright win in the lower house is not a mandate for the senate to rubberstamp legislation... more so when the senate is not won outright.

The fundamental duty of the Senators is to represent the best interests of their states and control or moderate any excesses of the lower house.

I understand there is at least one LNP senator from Qld who is under investigation by the CMC and not yet officially endorsed by the state.

Mr Newman's office would not comment last night on whether the Premier would force Mr O'Sullivan to withdraw if the CMC failed to meet the deadline.

The delay follows years of animosity between Mr Newman's parliamentary team and the LNP organisation led by president Bruce McIver and Mr O'Sullivan, who has been criticised internally as chairman of the party's candidate vetting committee.​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-waiting-on-cmc/story-fn9qr68y-1226718044238​

But, even then a party does not have a blank cheque, to do what it believes or construes to be it's public mandate. There is a little thing called the constitution which the GG in conjunction with the senate is entrusted to oversee. While not often used to any significant degree, it is still a powerful obligation to represent the best interests of the people as opposed to a political party or politician.

 

[IFocus]

Nonsense. There were many many bills which received the Coalition's assent. It's only those over which dissent arise that the media bring to our attention.
Try to remember that the main focus when the Coalition lost power was Workchoices. They accepted that they had lost the election which was largly fought on this issue, and went along with its abolition.
Try not to rewrite history, IFocus.

The nonsence is yours and your memory selective.

It was coalition policy (Howard took it to an election.....remember) to have a carbon price set by a market.

As for work non choices the Coalition were rightly punished it was dumped for election expediency.

Is there any chance of your writing in sentences?

Currently in deepest darkest Indonesia time and resouces are limited.

To say "everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish" is simply a reflection of your own wishes, absolutely not a reflection of the broad view across much of the electorate.
He won wide support for scrapping the ridiculous tax which has made Australia non-competitive with most of its trading partners, caused adversity to business, and achieved nothing in terms of 'climate change'.

I am not a strong supporter of a carbon tax or scheme but if you wish to have a method (polling shows Australians want some thing its coalition policy remember) then a market based one is surely the way a coalition would go they would be the market based politcal party ........... wouldnt they?
To hand over money as the coalition proposes is just bigger goverment largess.

 

[sails]

Whiskers, I don't see a winning party having a blank cheque just because they win. Mind you, it seems this last labor givernment had that mentality to spend massively on any thought bubble that wafted out but that doesn't make it right.

However, I do think there is a mandate especially for major policy which has been made clear pre-election by the winning party.

In 2007 I feel Rudd had a mandate to overturn work choices and the libs respected that mandate allowing it through the senate. Gillard had a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax and it seems she chose to thumb her nose at that mandate. Abbott clearly has a mandate to repeal carbon tax, stop the boats, build roads and stop the waste. They were his main pre-election policies. But that doesn't give him a blank check for whatever he wants and I agree with you on that issue.

However it would show respect for democracy if the senate respects the will of he majority for the mandate they have given this new government.

 

[noco]

The nonsence is yours and your memory selective.

It was coalition policy (Howard took it to an election.....remember) to have a carbon price set by a market.

As for work non choices the Coalition were rightly punished it was dumped for election expediency.




Currently in deepest darkest Indonesia time and resouces are limited.




I am not a strong supporter of a carbon tax or scheme but if you wish to have a method (polling shows Australians want some thing its coalition policy remember) then a market based one is surely the way a coalition would go they would be the market based politcal party ........... wouldnt they?
To hand over money as the coalition proposes is just bigger goverment largess.

IF. If only you could tell the truth on the Coalition considering an ETS you should be open in explaining that Howard would have entertained it had all major countries became involved. The fact is they didn't and that is the reason Howard and the coalition dropped the ETS.

Howard was not as stupid as the Labor Party who thought they had the World in their hands and would convert every Nation around the World into their way of thinking.

That ding bat Combet lied about the Nations who had an emmsiion trading schemes and he specifically mentiond China, but he did not tell the voters of Australia that China's scheme was $1.5 per tonne...........a big difference to his $23 per tonne.

Further more Combet never ever mentioned that !0% of the carbon tax collected went into the UN Climate Chamge committee coffers of whom the notorious Mr. Rudd is a member. He also did not mention the $599,000 donated to the UN Climate Change after the Can Cun meeting in Mexico

 

[wayneL]

I am not a strong supporter of a carbon tax or scheme but if you wish to have a method (polling shows Australians want some thing its coalition policy remember) then a market based one is surely the way a coalition would go they would be the market based politcal party ........... wouldnt they?
To hand over money as the coalition proposes is just bigger goverment largess.

A market implies that assets or production is being traded. A carbon market is neither of these, it is simply a floating tax, cloaked in complexity and free market terminology.

It has nothing to do with liberal economics.

 

[Julia]

The nonsence is yours and your memory selective.

It was coalition policy (Howard took it to an election.....remember) to have a carbon price set by a market.

Noco has correctly pointed out that Mr Howard suggested Australia could fall in with the rest of the world if a global scheme were to be established. It wasn't. The policy was not proceeded with.

This is in complete contrast to Gillard's clear statement that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" and her then putting in place a carbon tax with a price that was crazily too high. We've been all through this and you know it.

As for work non choices the Coalition were rightly punished it was dumped for election expediency.

It was not dumped for 'election expediency'. They took it to the election. The electorate rejected it.
The Coalition then went along with the legislation put up by the new government to get rid of it.

Might be good to return to putting most of us on Ignore, IF. It becomes somewhat tedious responding to your fiction.

Whiskers, I don't see a winning party having a blank cheque just because they win. Mind you, it seems this last labor givernment had that mentality to spend massively on any thought bubble that wafted out but that doesn't make it right.

However, I do think there is a mandate especially for major policy which has been made clear pre-election by the winning party.

In 2007 I feel Rudd had a mandate to overturn work choices and the libs respected that mandate allowing it through the senate. Gillard had a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax and it seems she chose to thumb her nose at that mandate. Abbott clearly has a mandate to repeal carbon tax, stop the boats, build roads and stop the waste. They were his main pre-election policies. But that doesn't give him a blank check for whatever he wants and I agree with you on that issue.

However it would show respect for democracy if the senate respects the will of he majority for the mandate they have given this new government.

+1. Anyway, it probably matters little, as Mr Abbott may simply have to wait for the more friendly Senate come July next year. Or go to a DD election entirely on the basis of abolishing the carbon tax. If that happens, it's my bet Labor will be completely demolished.

Especially after we have yet another month of Labor talking about themselves, with yet another campaign between Albanese and Shorten. Out of the entire Australian population, only about 40,000 people are rusted on Labor members toward whom much pleading will be directed by both Shorten and Albanese. They might be thrilled about having a say in the leadership, but the rest of Australia has had an absolute bellyfull of Labor and their internal machinations.
Add a DD election in a few months' time, and I don't think the average Australian is going to be too kind to Labor.

 

[sptrawler]

You're wasting your time Julia, IFocus and SC will continue to talk up Labor losers, even if the coalition improve Australia's position.
One eyed rusted on die hards, they can't even give Abbott 6 months to see how it pans out.

Yet they supported six year of the goon show with blind faith, just shows how out of step with mainstream Australia they are.
Wan't this election Labors worst primary vote, ever?
Also Bill Shorten says, the result is better than it would have been under Gillard.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers, I don't see a winning party having a blank cheque just because they win. Mind you, it seems this last labor givernment had that mentality to spend massively on any thought bubble that wafted out but that doesn't make it right.

We tend to forget the other big mandate Rudd won from the electorate... to lead the Labor Government without undue influence from unions and factions bosses.

Because of his stated position to be PM free of union and faction bosses influence, this was also an implicit reciprocal mandate for Rudd, to saying no to the demands of the far right of Lib and industry for extreme workplace reform... WorkChoices.

While Rudds power and popularity went to his head and has been blamed for a lot of things by many, he may not have turned out so badly, but for ([meant in it's legal defence test interpretation) his own disgruntled power broking union and factional backbenchers who seem to have quite successfully made so much noise about what they wanted to portray... a-la-NSW to partly destroy their own party in the guise of crap leadership, for the sake of perpetuating corrupt union and faction bosses maintaining control.


Gillard, in-her-own-mind felt she had a mandate to act like god because she knew what was best for us.

What else can one say about Julia, Shorten and Richo etc, except...

“Save your skin from the corrosive acids from the mouths of toxic people. Someone who just helped you to speak evil about another person can later help another person to speak evil about you.”
― Israelmore Ayivor​

However it would show respect for democracy if the senate respects the will of he majority for the mandate they have given this new government.

I personally don't see any net benefit from carbon pricing unless as has been mentioned, Howard said he would consider a scheme if the whole (or substantial part of) world joined. Having said that, I'm not sure what all the 'Other' senators policy was on the carbon tax.

It seems the LNP have 34, Labor and greens have 35 and there is another 7.

Not sure what to make of any mandate in the senate atm, BUT...

+1. Anyway, it probably matters little, as Mr Abbott may simply have to wait for the more friendly Senate come July next year. Or go to a DD election entirely on the basis of abolishing the carbon tax. If that happens, it's my bet Labor will be completely demolished.

... while it's possible and maybe probable the new senate could be 'negotiated' to abolish the carbon tax (it might just mean a healthy grant for some off road 4x4 dirt project down south) I doubt the LNP would be in a big hurry to test a double dissolution, and...

Especially after we have yet another month of Labor talking about themselves, with yet another campaign between Albanese and Shorten. Out of the entire Australian population, only about 40,000 people are rusted on Labor members toward whom much pleading will be directed by both Shorten and Albanese. They might be thrilled about having a say in the leadership, but the rest of Australia has had an absolute bellyfull of Labor and their internal machinations.
Add a DD election in a few months' time, and I don't think the average Australian is going to be too kind to Labor.

...I suspect the LNP think tanks will be watching closely how the Labor reforms settle out.

In the larger scheme of things a month to cool off and sort out its leadership issues is a small price to pay if they get it right and win back public confidence and accountability to their membership. The payback of taking the time to set out a better business model and plan will be to increase party membership and their intellectual and financial resources.

Abbott, I suspect, is aware that it took a long time and lot of self control to shake off the persona of chief head kicker for the Libs and win some degree of voter trust as a PM. The last thing we need is for another PM to loose the plot.

There are some administrative decisions that they can focus on to maintain and build on public trust before getting too excited about trying to force their hand with legislative matters and DD's.

 

[Calliope]

...Abbott, I suspect, is aware that it took a long time and lot of self control to shake off the persona of chief head kicker for the Libs and win some degree of voter trust as a PM. The last thing we need is for another PM to loose the plot.

There are some administrative decisions that they can focus on to maintain and build on public trust before getting too excited about trying to force their hand with legislative matters and DD's.

You are right Whiskers, and there will be no Double Dissolution for reasons I gave earlier. It would be madness, now that the micro parties have discovered how to manipulate preferences

The main reason that it is unlikely that a double dissolution would be held is that it would be likely to make it even harder for the Coalition to negotiate bills through the Senate. Because 12 senators would be elected in a state, rather than six, the quota for winning a seat would be lower. This makes it much easier for micro parties and independents to win seats. Given the high vote for micro parties at this half-Senate election, the likely outcome of a double dissolution in the next six months would be to increase the number of crossbenchers holding the Senate balance of power.

 

[IFocus]

Fact

Howard took a policy of a carbon trading scheme to his last election.

Fact

Rudd won an election on the policy of having a carbon trading scheme

Fact

Coalition (Abbott) opposed said policy.........wasnt there a mandate?



And yes it is a market based scheme and has every thing to do with a polictal party that runs the we are the better manages of the economy.

But then handing out largess is surly not a Abbott thing...........Minchin anyone

 

[drsmith]

Not much fodder from the Coalition for the ABC's insiders to talk about today. The sacking of Steve Bracks, the foreign ownership of land were briefly discussed and an even briefer reference to Indonesia in relation to asylum policy and that was it.

They had to spend most of their time talking about Labor for which there is still no shortage of material.

 

[sails]

Fact

Howard took a policy of a carbon trading scheme to his last election.

Fact

Rudd won an election on the policy of having a carbon trading scheme

Fact

Coalition (Abbott) opposed said policy.........wasnt there a mandate?



And yes it is a market based scheme and has every thing to do with a polictal party that runs the we are the better manages of the economy.

But then handing out largess is surly not a Abbott thing...........Minchin anyone

why do you omit one election. IF?

FACT:
Gillard took a promise of no carbon tax to the 2010 election effectively changing labor's previous mandate. Even Rudd admitted recently labor did NOT have a mandate to introduce carbon tax in this last term.

FACT:
Now, in 2013, the majority have voted AGAIN for no carbon tax.

Sounds like a mandate to me no matter how you try to spin that... Mandates are based on the most recent election - surely even you understand that, IF?

Methinks labor will never understand what makes the electorate tick.

 

[noco]

why do you omit one election. IF?

FACT:
Gillard took a promise of no carbon tax to the 2010 election effectively changing labor's previous mandate. Even Rudd admitted recently labor did NOT have a mandate to introduce carbon tax in this last term.

FACT:
Now, in 2013, the majority have voted AGAIN for no carbon tax.

Sounds like a mandate to me no matter how you try to spin that... Mandates are based on the most recent election - surely even you understand that, IF?

Methinks labor will never understand what makes the electorate tick.

Sails, you could pour a litre of water in some peoples ears and it would run right out the other side because there is nothing in the middle.

I for one, have already quoted the reason why Howard and the coalition dropped the idea of an ETS and it was because the major part of the rest of the world were not interested. Simple as that.

Rudd tried to pull the wool over our eyes by saying he would scrap the carbon tax of $25 per tonne but later qualified his lie by saying he would bring in an ETS one year earlier which could rise to $38 by 2020.

Rudd dropped the idea of an ETS in 2007/8 after being promted by Gillard. Gillard goes to an election in 2010 with "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD".

DING....DING....I wonder if IF gets it now?

 

[IFocus]

Not much fodder from the Coalition for the ABC's insiders to talk about today. The sacking of Steve Bracks, the foreign ownership of land were briefly discussed and an even briefer reference to Indonesia in relation to asylum policy and that was it.

They had to spend most of their time talking about Labor for which there is still no shortage of material.

Thats what has been happening for months?

You only just noticed?

 

[IFocus]

Howard did not drop the ETS...........if he had won the last election we would likely have one WTF are you all smoking.

BTW Labor ............Rudd won an election with a ETS policy Abbott opposed the mandate

 

[wayneL]

Things have changed IF, specifically, the purported science for a catastrophic warming scenario has fallen off a cliff.

Any workable policies to deal with the likely effects of any modest warming will not include a tax on CO2, and will deal with mitigation.