Tony Abbott for PM

Some Dude · 12 January 2013

sails said:
Not so much because the two independents apparently come from strongly conservative seats. AT least they couldn't be accused of turning their back on their electorates. And the majority of votes and seats still favoured the libs.

I do believe I see your point, I'm just not sure how it means the government is illegitimate. As with Howard, there maybe consequences to their decisions but it was legally and legitimately their decision to make. I'm not implying that that makes it any more satisfying to those who disagree with their decision.

sails said:
Because the libs and nats go to the election as a coalition, I think you should add their two votes. Again, that puts them marginally ahead of labor. If the greens and labor had become a coalition BEFORE the election it would be fair to add their votes too, but voters were treating them as separate parties when they voted.

Yes, agree. I'm not disagreeing that those electorates would be considered conservative on the political spectrum but looking up Oakeshott as an example, he was an independent with a voting record prior to the 2010 election that seems consistent with his decisions that you object to. According to wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
In his first term, Oakeshott voted 32 times with the ruling Labor government (including in support of the proposed emission trading scheme) and nine times with the opposition. He has explained that this record was not indicative of support for Labor's policy platform, but rather because he believed in allowing governments to govern.

Even if we accepted the premise about the political spectrum of his electorate mandating he vote accordingly, It's not like his electorate should have been unaware of his voting record. I haven't looked into Windsor but can if you like?

sails said:
And also Howard won the GST election comfortably by seats but I think he actually lost on the primary vote. Again, our somewhat crazy electoral system allows for some strange things. Obviously the majority did not want GST but because our system is based on the number of seats and Howard got a comfortable majority. Very different to Gillard losing on the primary vote AND not winning in the seats race either without poaching a couple of independents from conservative electorates.

The system does allow for some strange things but we are fortunate to live in a country where we can vote and change those things peacefully because we recognise the legitimacy of the process.

drsmith · 12 January 2013

Judging by the recent contributions to this thread, TA must be doing something right.

Julia · 12 January 2013

Logique said:
At the risk of being clobbered by both sides - calm down all of you.

+1. Hopefully that little spat is now over.

moXJO said:
I havnt seen this much election fever since 2007

Plenty more to come I expect.

sails · 12 January 2013

Some Dude said:
I do believe I see your point, I'm just not sure how it means the government is illegitimate. As with Howard, there maybe consequences to their decisions but it was legally and legitimately their decision to make. I'm not implying that that makes it any more satisfying to those who disagree with their decision.

I don't believe I called the government illegitimate. I think some people perceive it that way due to the circumstances of how she grabbed power in both instances.

Yes, agree. I'm not disagreeing that those electorates would be considered conservative on the political spectrum but looking up Oakeshott as an example, he was an independent with a voting record prior to the 2010 election that seems consistent with his decisions that you object to. According to wikipedia:

How Oakeshott might have voted on a few occasions doesn't detract from the fact he has kept a labor government in power which would not sit well with a conservative electorate. How would you feel if you were from a strongly labor electorate and voted in an independent whom you thought had leanings to the left and then he or she turned against labor and supported a coalition minority government? Sometimes I find it helps to look at it in a different way for the purpose of objectivity.

Even if we accepted the premise about the political spectrum of his electorate mandating he vote accordingly, It's not like his electorate should have been unaware of his voting record. I haven't looked into Windsor but can if you like?

The next election will tell us what the voters in both those electorates feel about their MPs. That will settle all arguments one way or the other!

The system does allow for some strange things but we are fortunate to live in a country where we can vote and change those things peacefully because we recognise the legitimacy of the process.

It's just a shame that so much damage and legislation against the wishes of the majority can be done in three years. $260 billion in debt and counting, borders are now one highly expensive mess and a carbon tax the majority didn't want - and these things don't inspire confidence!

Calliope · 12 January 2013

Some Dude said:
Yes, agree. I'm not disagreeing that those electorates would be considered conservative on the political spectrum but looking up Oakeshott as an example, he was an independent with a voting record prior to the 2010 election that seems consistent with his decisions that you object to.

Even if we accepted the premise about the political spectrum of his electorate mandating he vote accordingly, It's not like his electorate should have been unaware of his voting record. I haven't looked into Windsor but can if you like?

The voting record of these two dudes is consistent with the the premise that they both hate the Country Party...the party they originally ratted on and switched to "Independents."

We will see what their electorates think of their "voting records" come the next election. Both seats will revert to the Coalition.

Some Dude · 12 January 2013

Calliope said:
I know you like conservative posters to explain things carefully to you to save your precious time checking.

Why yes, yes I do. Thank you for noticing that I try to achieve a fair clarity and understanding about their point and what sources of information helped them reach their conclusion instead of simply assuming they are idiots who are misinformed.

Calliope said:
If by "they" you mean Windsor and Oakeshott, well they both represent non-Labor electorates. For them to have supported the Coalition would have given us a legitimate government.

My understanding was that they are independents. One of whom in particular has a most interesting voting record before 2010 for a "non-Labor" electorate. That you or the majority of their electorate may disagree with their decision does not make their ability to choose any less legitimate. Anyone remember Mal Calston for example?

--

Combining responses.

--

Calliope said:
The voting record of these two dudes is consistent with the the premise that they both hate the Country Party...the party they originally ratted on and switched to "Independents."

We will see what their electorates think of their "voting records" come the next election. Both seats will revert to the Coalition.

Even if your opinion of their voting record before 2010 was relevant to them being elected in 2010 by the voters of their electorate, that doesn't make their legitimacy to vote as they did any less valid.

Calliope · 12 January 2013

Some Dude said:
Even if your opinion of their voting record before 2010 was relevant to them being elected in 2010 by the voters of their electorate, that doesn't make their legitimacy to vote as they did any less valid.

As I said, their electorates will be the final arbiters on whether their voting records reflect the conservative views of the electors.

Legitimate...:dunno:

Bastards...certainly.

Some Dude · 12 January 2013

Calliope said:
As I said, their electorates will be the final arbiters on whether their voting records reflect the conservative views of the electors.

Agreed. What I suspect is that Oakeshott's electorate were probably not as aware as they should have been about his voting record and what happened in 2010 was probably a bit of a shock as indicated by polling. I will be watching both seats with keen interest come election night. My guess, Windsor will lose, Oakeshott might squeak through but if he does, it will be barely.

Calliope said:
Legitimate...:dunno:

Bastards...certainly.

Heh.. Understood

dutchie · 12 January 2013

Some Dude said:
My guess, Windsor will lose, Oakeshott might squeak through but if he does, it will be barely.

Both of them would be dreaming if they thought they had any chance.

Their electorates (and Australia) have been so deceived by these two gutless wonders.

They would not even be able to win a P & C fete committee position (no offense to any P & C's).

They won't even bother to nominate for re-election.

IFocus · 12 January 2013

sails said:
My take on it. Gillard is only legally the PM due to our somewhat crazy electoral system which allowed someone who did not get the majority of primary votes and who didn't win the most seats to take power. Gillard was not actually elected as PM by the majority. She runs a minority government which means she didn't win the election.

The electoral system is not crazy at all in fact its very simple, anyone and I mean anyone who can be elected and garner the major of votes in the lower house can form government.

Its really simple

Its not required to be along any political party or any other criteria its just a head count nothing more repeat nothing more.

Abbotts very successful campaign to brand this government illegitimate (its a another Abbott lie BTW) seems to have sucked the usual suspects.

MrBurns · 12 January 2013

IFocus said:
The electoral system is not crazy at all in fact its very simple, anyone and I mean anyone who can be elected and garner the major of votes in the lower house can form government.

Its really simple

Its not required to be along any political party or any other criteria its just a head count nothing more repeat nothing more.

Abbotts very successful campaign to brand this government illegitimate (its a another Abbott lie BTW) seems to have sucked the usual suspects.

I think it's simple too.

Gillard did not get a majority of public support at the election, the gained power by lying to the independants.

Furthermore she only gained as many votes as she did in the first place by lying to the public.

So she is in the lodge because of lies told to the public and lies told to the independants.

Therefore it may be legal but it's not moral or ethical by any decent standard and she really shouldn't be there.

Intrinsic Value · 12 January 2013

sails said:
My take on it. Gillard is only legally the PM due to our somewhat crazy electoral system which allowed someone who did not get the majority of primary votes and who didn't win the most seats to take power. Gillard was not actually elected as PM by the majority. She runs a minority government which means she didn't win the election.

And MrBurns is right in that Gillard back-stabbed an PM who WAS elected by the people. She was not elected then and, imo, it was highly undemocratic to remove a popular PM who had been voted in by a healthy majority.

Then she didn't win the election and so she pork barrelled (aka bribed???) the independents who it is said represent conservative electorates to prop her up. That seems to defy the intent of democracy.

Definition of democracy from Dictionary.com::

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Surely there should be the facility for electorates to demand a bi-election when their elected representatives fail to represent the majority? And MPs should not be allowed to change their allegiances without a bi-election (at the member's expense or by the party who is trying to poach them). That would prevent much of the shenanigans that have gone on in this last term.

Here is the percentage of primary votes from the last election (remembering that primary votes indicate the first choice of the people) AND the Coalition won in the seats race too:

Party.... % Vote.... Seats
Labor.... 38.0.... 72
Coalition.... 43.7.... 73

So, technically Gillard is a PM not elected by the majority but by the choice of 2 people who are apparently not representing their electorates. Doesn't sound like democracy to me.

While she is legally the PM, I think many voters struggle with the way she got there and many probably perceive her as being illegitimate in that role. And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.

The PM is not voted in by the electorate. That is a party matter.

Both Gillard and Abbott were furioulsy trying to put together deals and promising the earth when it was apparent that neither could form a govt in their own right. I recall Abbott making some outrageous promises as well to the independents.

In the end Gillard won that battle and Abbott lost it. That is politics. A legitimate government was formed within the legal requirements that are outlined in the legislation.

Abbott will probably get his chance come the next election but for me I dont see much earth shattering change with either party in government.

When are we going to get a government that makes significant cuts to unsustainable welfare handouts I will put my hand up and support them. They all seen addicted to spending vast amounts of taxpayers money without looking at sensible long term fiscal planning.

noco · 12 January 2013

Abbott verses Turnbull and Abbott will come out on top. He WILL be our next Prime Minister.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ange-their-chief/story-fn53lw5p-1226551500008

IFocus · 15 January 2013

Pressure builds for Abbott, losing the un-lose-able election anyone?

Support for Labor surges in latest Newspoll

Federal Labor has recorded a jump in support at the start of an election year, but its resurgence appears to have come mostly at a cost to the Greens and other parties, rather than the Coalition.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/support-for-labor-surges-in-latest-newspoll/4464788

MrBurns · 15 January 2013

IFocus said:
Pressure builds for Abbott, losing the un-lose-able election anyone?
Support for Labor surges in latest Newspoll
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/support-for-labor-surges-in-latest-newspoll/4464788

Now I'm worried, weasel face has learned how to manipulate public opinion and from now on she'll pull all stops out.
All very well for Tony to be a good bloke but something has to change, either Tony has to be seen to be doing more or start releasing bombshell policy NOW.

Libs should still win but it's getting too close for comfort.

Stupid Australian public, I just cant believe those polls.

noco · 15 January 2013

MrBurns said:
Now I'm worried, weasel face has learned how to manipulate public opinion and from now on she'll pull all stops out.
All very well for Tony to be a good bloke but something has to change, either Tony has to be seen to be doing more or start releasing bombshell policy NOW.

Libs should still win but it's getting too close for comfort.

Stupid Australian public, I just cant believe those polls.

Yes Mr. Burns, I am not a great believer in these polls because they can be manipulated. It may be good in one way in that it might just entice Mis Gillard to go to the polls in March to avoid the fall out from Slipper. If he is found guilty, he will have no alternative but to resign which will create an unwelcome bi-election for Miss Gillard.

With regard to Abbott releasing his policies now, IMO, would be a grave mistake. He must hold his nerve and hold off until an election is announced no matter what or whom may put him under pressure.

There is an old saying "DON'T SHOOT UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THEIR EYES".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-bounce-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226553932723

sails · 15 January 2013

MrBurns said:
... I just cant believe those polls.

Mr Burns, only time will tell how accurate these polls are. When polls don't line up with general public sentiment, I don't believe them.

It seems there is anger to Gillard and labor similar to that of Whitlam, Howard over work choices and more recently Bligh in Qld. And we know what the electorate did in each of those cases.

The polls were considerably out in their favour of labor on the recent state elections - let's see what WA tells us. They go to the polls in March, I think.

I understand betting odds are nowhere near Newspoll's optimism for labor.

sydboy007 · 15 January 2013

Intrinsic Value said:
The PM is not voted in by the electorate. That is a party matter.

Both Gillard and Abbott were furioulsy trying to put together deals and promising the earth when it was apparent that neither could form a govt in their own right. I recall Abbott making some outrageous promises as well to the independents.

In the end Gillard won that battle and Abbott lost it. That is politics. A legitimate government was formed within the legal requirements that are outlined in the legislation.

Abbott will probably get his chance come the next election but for me I dont see much earth shattering change with either party in government.

When are we going to get a government that makes significant cuts to unsustainable welfare handouts I will put my hand up and support them. They all seen addicted to spending vast amounts of taxpayers money without looking at sensible long term fiscal planning.

Oh so very true. Only have to look at what the Govt of the day keeps spending our money on to see the blatant vote grabbing both sides are addicted to. Any LNP supporter who can say straight faced that the baby bonus was done purely for economic reasons, and wasn't a vote grabbing waste of money, should sign up to be the next member of their electorate.

The problem is the next election is going to bring out the false promises yet again, only to be blotted out by the fiscal reality post election.

Both sides know this, but both sides will nudge nudge wink wink and say no more.

I am looking forward to the LNP provide some policy costings as I've only heard them talk about cutting revenue, and yet to hear what spending cuts they will make.

sptrawler · 15 January 2013

sydboy007 said:
Oh so very true. Only have to look at what the Govt of the day keeps spending our money on to see the blatant vote grabbing both sides are addicted to. Any LNP supporter who can say straight faced that the baby bonus was done purely for economic reasons, and wasn't a vote grabbing waste of money, should sign up to be the next member of their electorate.

The problem is the next election is going to bring out the false promises yet again, only to be blotted out by the fiscal reality post election.

Both sides know this, but both sides will nudge nudge wink wink and say no more.

I am looking forward to the LNP provide some policy costings as I've only heard them talk about cutting revenue, and yet to hear what spending cuts they will make.

+1 I think it will be the election of broken promises whichever way it goes.

Calliope · 15 January 2013

sydboy007 said:
I am looking forward to the LNP provide some policy costings as I've only heard them talk about cutting revenue, and yet to hear what spending cuts they will make.

And I am looking forward to some policy costings by your mob...the Greens.

Tony Abbott for PM

Some Dude

drsmith

Julia

In Memoriam

sails

Calliope

Some Dude

Calliope

Some Dude

dutchie

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

MrBurns

Intrinsic Value

noco

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

MrBurns

noco

sails

sydboy007

sptrawler

Calliope

Tony Abbott for PM

In Memoriam

You are arguing with a Galah

You are arguing with a Galah

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency