This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new

How's this, the failed 'let's send kids to Malaysia" solution was stopped by the high court and Howards Pacific solution got caught up in that decision, if the bastard Gilard regime hadn't tried to send children to Malaysia the whole thing would not have been challenged in the courts and subsequently stuffed up a solution that worked.
 
Ferret said:
The Malaysia deal was stopped by a high court decision that also stops a return to the Pacific solution. Abbott then refused to support legislation that would have got around this court decision.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly as I recall it playing out also.
 

Have an election.

Put Abbott in charge and then if his policy fails you can then get your dagger out.
 

Yes, quite right Mr Burns. But that doesn't explain how Abbott is going to fix this when he's in power.
 
Ferret said:
Yes, quite right Mr Burns. But that doesn't explain how Abbott is going to fix this when he's in power.
Click to expand...

Two possibilities (but then I'm not an expert):

Double dissolution and then change the necessary laws?

OR withdraw from the UNHCR


And, I understand that the High Court decision on Malaysia had more to do with issues in Malaysia and may not implicate the Pacific Solution as refugees were cared for by Australians and in Australian provided accomodation. I also understand that, with bi-partisan support, Gillard and Abbott could have changed the necessary laws to re-introduce the Pacific Solution.

But Gillard rolled Bowen on that one. She only has herself to blame.
 

Selective memory hey sails

Abbott passing the Malaysia deal would of in effect allowed him to send boat arrivals anywhere he wanted, but he didn't want a bar of that....so who's to blame for Tony not passing a law supporting HIS OWN POLICY?

So just to spell it out for you

  • Labor policy = Malaysia & Pacific solution, Labor support, Lib/Nat Block, Green Block
  • Lib/Nat Policy = Pacific solution only, Labor block, Lib/Nat support, Green Block
 

SC - Sure Abbott could have helped Gillard have her rather inhumane way and send people off to unknown torture in Malaysia OR Gillard could have agreed to allow the more humane Pacific Solution to be passed.

Gillard could have had this sorted by now and was offered a helping hand by Abbott. I would think she could still choose that option at any time, but instead of doing the best thing for the country, she chooses to blame Abbott instead. Bizarre to say the least.

In essence, you are saying that it is possible for laws to be passed provided both houses agree which indicates to me that Abbott stands a good chance of getting any changes of law passed. Courts simply administer the law, they do not make laws. Yes, they set precendeces, but they don't make the laws.
 
sails said:
In essence, you are saying that it is possible for laws to be passed provided both houses agree which indicates to me that Abbott stands a good chance of getting any changes of law passed.
Click to expand...
If the Coalition takes government and want to pass a law as above, why do you think Labor will be any more prepared to co-operate than the Opposition was when the government wanted the bipartisan legislation?

Another point: we are focusing on a double dissolution election necessarily changing the balance of power in the Senate. What happens if the Greens maintain their status there?
I just think Mr Abbott is making rather too many assumptions about what he's capable of achieving and his supporters are doing likewise.
 
The most important change needed is Gillard/Labor OUT, after that everything else will start to improve.
How Abbott will get rid of the Carbon Tax I don't know, Gillard will hard wire it in as best she can.
 
It is not surprising that Abbott wrote a glowing reference for Slipper for pre-selection prior to the 2007 election. The elephant in Abbott's room is Mal Brough. He was the logical candidate for Fisher and is probably the last person Abbott wants to see in Parliament.

Abbott is on the nose with the electorate on a par with Gillard and will be challenged after the election. Mal Brough would be a vastly more credible PM than Abbott and after the next election he will be the member for Fisher.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/alba...er-liberals-20120429-1xsjd.html#ixzz1tOLghhmN
 


With labor on 27% primary vote, it is likely that neither the greens nor labor will be a problem. Yes, he is taking some risk, but how would you feel if reports came back from Malaysia of people being tortured because Abbott agreed to do a potentially cruel deal with Gillard?

And, it is purely Gillard's stubborness in not fixing this mess, imo. It is possible that Abbott might still give her support in both houses if she opted for the more humane and tested solution.

Gillard can't seem to help herself in lunging from one disaster to the next. She is pinning her hopes on carbon tax slipping in people only noticing their slight reduction in tax.

It seems she is hoping we are all too stupid to realise that the increased cost of living (which may not be offset by her tax cuts) has nothing to do with her unpopular tax. However, itis highly unlikely that people are as stupid as she hopes.

The recent results in both NSW and QLD elections indicate that the libs are likely to have a landslide win. Massive losses is what usually happens to governments who refuse to listen to the people.
 
Labor will get flogged but thats in the Lower House Abbott will not get the senate, Greens will maintain their numbers due to the senate election cycle and Labor members will be voted back in for insurance.


BTW didn't the Greens do OK in the Queensland election and in DD elections independents and small parties do very well historically.

And as for a Double D election Abbott will be forced into 3 elections if thats the case as pointed out on the Insiders to bring the Senate into alignment again............bring it on.

Abbott-liar just rolls of the tongue eh......
 

Greens picked up 7.5% of the vote in the main Qld election.

In Anna Bligh's seat of South Brisbane, the green candidate got 20% so far with 60% of the vote counted. The alp candidate got 33% of the vote while the LNP candidate got 38%. It raises how much of this 20% green vote was a protest from disgruntled labor voters who could not bring themselves to vote for LNP...lol

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2012/

voting so far for South Brisbane:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2012/southbrisbane/result.htm


The Libs will need to get control of both houses to repeal carbon tax. I would think the people will put up with how ever many elections are required to get this job done.
 


You could be right, Calliope. Isn't Mal Brough now pre-selected for Slipper's seat? Just a shame there doesn't have to be a by-election if these MPs change their allegiences by going independent.
 

Who should she blame for Tony not voting for his own policy?

sails your political credibility is looking a little thin....thinking about this today ive come to the conclusion that Tony simply didn't want to put his leadership to the test, didn't want to take the political risk of supporting his own policy and thus giving a very marginal Govt a very marginal political victory.

That's how weak and gutless he really is....the ASF right rarely talks about the 1 vote advantage that Tony had, but i bet he thinks about it all the time.
 
Calliope said:
Mal Brough would be a vastly more credible PM than Abbott
Click to expand...
I agree. He was impressive in the previous government.
I don't suppose it matters why people voted Green. That's a pretty significant result and an indication imo that a double dissolution Federal election will not provide any assurance of a change of balance of power in the Senate.
 


SC - that's getting a bit rude. No need for personal insults about my political credibility. I'm not a politician, not a member of any political party and don't need said credibility, so pull your head in...

And you seem to be talking in riddles about Tony. Perhaps you should look at your own credibililty before pointing fingers at others. Gillard had her choice between Nauru and onshore. She chose onshore. It is entirely her own choice and fault that the boats keep coming. She is the PM.

I don't know what Abbott wanted any more than you. Perhaps he didn't want the poisoned chalice as much as Gillard. But you are entitled to any conclusion you like. It just doesn't make it so...

Keep the personal insults out of it please.
 

SC - I'm afraid Sails is right here. I will happy qualify myself (professionally) on this subject matter by PM to satisfy you if you require it.

The Nauru option did not require any legislative amendment over and above the changes made in 2001. The High Court didn't declare Nauru unlawful and in fact made specific mention of its operation at [127]-[128] of its judgment.

So the Gillard government's stubbornness and pride wouldn't let it go back to Nauru without also changing the legislation to give it the Malaysia solution.

The only problem with that was it was completely unprincipled and inhumane. When the history books get written, Labor and its supporters will hang their collective heads in shame to know that they were prepared to legislate away all the human right protections inserted by the Howard Government when it created the "Pacific Solution" and leave it to trust (of the Malaysian government, no less!).

Turn on the SBS news today to see how trustowrthy the Malaysian government is. If it's prepared to act like this to its own, then don't underestimate what it would do to asylum seekers.

It will also be easily forgotten that Gillard never put it to the vote because the Labor Left led by Doug Cameron (who I now have huge respect for) were going to vote it down. And a lost vote in the House of Representatives would have been sufficient to bring the government down.

Abbott's blocking of the Malaysia solution legislative amendment may have politics written all over it, I grant you. But in circumstances where it's going to avoid the most inhumane treatment of people who (not by our choosing) have become our international legal responsibility, the political stagnation is a small price to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...