Given the now almost certainty that the Coalition will be elected to government in a landslide, the question comes about as to how the soon-to-be opposition ALP and the Greens will treat the undeniable mandate to remove the carbon tax. The Coalition will most likely not gain a majority in the senate and so will be wanting the new senate (or even the current one) to pass the CT repeal.

History shows us that in 2007 Howard lost an election that was a mandate for the removal of workchoices. Consequently, the Coalition voted for the repeal even though labor did not have a majority.  With Abbott looking at a 60+ seat majority and the biggest swing in history and an election based in large measure on repealing the CT, the existence of a mandate to repeal is undeniable.

So do you think Labor senators will vote for the repeal? do you think they should vote for the repeal? PLease give justification for your replies.

Note that I do not mention the Greens in this. The greens do not honour mandates or frankly. anyone else's opinions or even rights. They will do what they always do and vote how THEY think it should go.

I personally think Labor will support the repeal. The massacre heading their way will change their feelings greatly and not everyone in the party is as dishonourable as Gillard. They may see it as a first step in their restoration in the eyes of voters as a truly democratic and honourable party after the last 3 years of deceit. and they may also realise that voting against the repeal will only give Abbott a DD where they could get hammered badly. Voters get rather annoyed at parties that refuse to do as they are told at elections.

So... thoughts?

and please this is not a climate change debate. leave that out. restrict it to 'repeal or not' not a value assessment on the CT itself.

Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott???

It is already official Labor policy to repeal the tax. I think it is already written into law.

Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?

well there's that thing called democracy. you might want to look it up. it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong. Democracy is about the right to choose.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:05pm:

Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott???

the greens wont. the whole notion of mandates and honour escapes their left-wing minds. Labor however may just do it. There is nothing like an enormous voter-given smack in the head to make people change their minds.

Quote:

it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong

I see. You are one of those "democracy above all else" type of people? The sort that would back Hitler because he got voted in?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:05pm:

Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott???

Yes but liberals are a party with integrity. Labor are a party of corruption, selling voters down the river. lying directly to the electorates face.

Chalk and cheese.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:05pm:

Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott???

The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition

You sure about that ????

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:08pm:

It is already official Labor policy to repeal the tax. I think it is already written into law.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?

Exactly.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:05pm: Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott??? Yes but liberals are a party with integrity. Labor are a party of corruption, selling voters down the river. lying directly to the electorates face. Chalk and cheese.

Yes but liberals are a party with integrity

You conservatives are so funny.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:29pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:05pm: Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott??? Yes but liberals are a party with integrity. Labor are a party of corruption, selling voters down the river. lying directly to the electorates face. Chalk and cheese. Yes but liberals are a party with integrity You conservatives are so funny.

Yes it was a bit of an in joke  ;)

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:26pm:

Quote: it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong I see. You are one of those "democracy above all else" type of people? The sort that would back Hitler because he got voted in?

*invokes godwins law...

the fact you treat democracy with such patent disinterest says a lot about you as well. Im sure if you could get the greens in power and dissolve parliament you'd be a happy little vegimite.

until you were shot by the green shirts.

and yes. DEMOCRACY ABOVE ALL ELSE. way about dictatorship, totalitarianism and all the other alternatives.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:35pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:05pm: Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott??? The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition You sure about that ????

yes

I think longy is a little bit worried the scientists might be right on CO2 driven warming. He knows when the record temperatures inevitably return, the Coalition will never be forgiven for this act of economic vandalism.

Just keep in mind Abbott is in a privileged position. He has no excuse for being hood winked by the media.

I think labor should take a leaf out of the libs rule book regarding asylum seekers ...

'we had the best way to combat carbon emmissions and we don't see why we should agree to anything less'.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:45pm:

I think longy is a little but worried the scientists might be right on CO2 driven warming. He knows when the record temperatures inevitably return, the Coalition will never be forgiven for this act of economic vandalism. Just keep in mind Abbott is in a privileged position. He has no excuse for being hood winked by the media.

so cant argue the point of principle? this it not about ACC - it is about our parliamentary democracy and the principles and conventions under which it operates.  Care to make a comment on the actual topic?

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:45pm:

I think labor should take a leaf out of the libs rule book regarding asylum seekers ... 'we had the best way to combat carbon emmissions and we don't see why we should agree to anything less'.

ah the old leftist doctrine: subvert democracy and the rule of law at every opportunity.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:35pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:05pm: Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott??? The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition You sure about that ???? yes

My thought is that they didn't vote against it but also didn't vote for it either?

Quote:

invokes godwins law

This is entirely appropriate when someone suggests that right and wrong have nothing to do with it.


Quote:

the fact you treat democracy with such patent disinterest says a lot about you as well. Im sure if you could get the greens in power and dissolve parliament you'd be a happy little vegimite.

Perhaps you should bother reading what I have written about democracy, and about Greens policy, before commenting.


Quote:

and yes. DEMOCRACY ABOVE ALL ELSE. way about dictatorship, totalitarianism and all the other alternatives.

Including right and wrong?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Quote: invokes godwins law This is entirely appropriate when someone suggests that right and wrong have nothing to do with it. [quote]the fact you treat democracy with such patent disinterest says a lot about you as well. Im sure if you could get the greens in power and dissolve parliament you'd be a happy little vegimite.

Perhaps you should bother reading what I have written about democracy, and about Greens policy, before commenting.


Quote:

and yes. DEMOCRACY ABOVE ALL ELSE. way about dictatorship, totalitarianism and all the other alternatives.

Including right and wrong?
[/quote]

garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Quote: invokes godwins law This is entirely appropriate when someone suggests that right and wrong have nothing to do with it. [quote]the fact you treat democracy with such patent disinterest says a lot about you as well. Im sure if you could get the greens in power and dissolve parliament you'd be a happy little vegimite.

Perhaps you should bother reading what I have written about democracy, and about Greens policy, before commenting.


Quote:

and yes. DEMOCRACY ABOVE ALL ELSE. way about dictatorship, totalitarianism and all the other alternatives.

Including right and wrong?
[/quote]

who determines right and wrong? you? Until such time as God Almightly sets up court on earth, the highest authority in the land is the voting public. right and wrong is their determination.

Quote:

garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one.

My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way.

Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:46pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:45pm: I think longy is a little but worried the scientists might be right on CO2 driven warming. He knows when the record temperatures inevitably return, the Coalition will never be forgiven for this act of economic vandalism. Just keep in mind Abbott is in a privileged position. He has no excuse for being hood winked by the media. so cant argue the point of principle? this it not about ACC - it is about our parliamentary democracy and the principles and conventions under which it operates.  Care to make a comment on the actual topic?

The point of principle is that the Coalition will have to win control of both houses before they can pass legislation.

The Coalition removed some of the excesses of Work Choices because they did not want to maintain ownership of it. Labor is going to the people proud of their legislation.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Quote: garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one. My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way. Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders.

then what IS above democracy? Ive said that God is but other than Him. exactly who or what do you suggest is above democracy and how is that super-democratic rule imposed or decided?

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:46pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:45pm: I think longy is a little but worried the scientists might be right on CO2 driven warming. He knows when the record temperatures inevitably return, the Coalition will never be forgiven for this act of economic vandalism. Just keep in mind Abbott is in a privileged position. He has no excuse for being hood winked by the media. so cant argue the point of principle? this it not about ACC - it is about our parliamentary democracy and the principles and conventions under which it operates.  Care to make a comment on the actual topic? The point of principle is that the Coalition will have to win control of both houses before they can pass legislation. The Coalition removed some of the excesses of Work Choices because they did not want to maintain ownership of it. Labor is going to the people proud of their legislation.

so MOTR what if the people vote in a massive landslide against labor with repealing the CT the core of the campaign? do you think that morally entitles Labor to snumb the unequivocal rejection of tje CT? what if Abbot held a plebiscite on repealing the CT. do you think labor is duty-bound to reject it then?

Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution. Perhaps that's what Gillard should have done. A plebiscite on the Malaysian solution.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:02pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:55pm: Quote: garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one. My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way. Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders. then what IS above democracy? Ive said that God is but other than Him. exactly who or what do you suggest is above democracy

Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar?


Quote:

and how is that super-democratic rule imposed or decided?

Undemocratically.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:08pm:

Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution.

to vote for a policy that was not his and which he fundamentally and morally disagreed with? no. if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:08pm: Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution. to vote for a policy that was not his and which he fundamentally and morally disagreed with? no. if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different.

What about an EST. Was Abbott duty bound to support an EST.

Quote:

if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different

;D

So now we see the absurd simple mindedness of your argument. Elections are referendums on a single issue.....

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:02pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:55pm: Quote: garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one. My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way. Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders. then what IS above democracy? Ive said that God is but other than Him. exactly who or what do you suggest is above democracy Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? [quote]and how is that super-democratic rule imposed or decided?

Undemocratically.[/quote]

pitiful,l truly pitiful. but your last sentence is very revealing. it would appear that you actively support a dictatorship.  Am I correct and if not then I re-ask the  original question as to what and who stands above a democracy and how its wishes are imposed.

at the moment you are looking and sounding exactly like the Hitler example you invoked previously.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:08pm: Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution. to vote for a policy that was not his and which he fundamentally and morally disagreed with? no. if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different. What about an EST. Was Abbott duty bound to support an EST.

when you answer my question about labors obligation to repeal a CT then I will answer yours. IM guessing you will deflect. But at elast you are not suggesting a dictatorship as FD is.

Quote:

it would appear that you actively support a dictatorship.

Perhaps you should stick to what I actually say.


Quote:

at the moment you are looking and sounding exactly like the Hitler example you invoked previously.

Democracy gave us Hitler. It did not remove him.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Quote: if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different ;D So now we see the absurd simple mindedness of your argument. Elections are referendums on a single issue.....

channeling SOB now I see... Well I guess it is better than channeling Hitler which your other posts would suggest.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:14pm:

Quote: it would appear that you actively support a dictatorship. Perhaps you should stick to what I actually say. [quote]at the moment you are looking and sounding exactly like the Hitler example you invoked previously.

Democracy gave us Hitler. It did not remove him.[/quote]


nice attempt at a deflection.  maybe instead you could tell us what stands above a democracy and how it would work in practice?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:09pm:

Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar?

so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda???
freedom to come and go at will...
freedom of free speech in the media..
freedom to vote


argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country..

but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is..

What is your point cods?

Longy:

Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar?

In practice it is messy, unlike the absurdly simple minded fantasy you have created.

cods wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:17pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:09pm: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda??? freedom to come and go at will... freedom of free speech in the media.. freedom to vote argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country.. but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is..

I suspect FD supports a form of democracy not as we know it. one that involves mysterious oversight - probably my minority parties.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:35pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:05pm: Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott??? The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition You sure about that ????

Positive. Check if you don't believe me.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

What is your point cods? Longy: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? In practice it is messy, unlike the absurdly simple minded fantasy you have created.

still not an answer. if democracy is not at the top of the pile of government then what is? Rule by minority parties?

how about an answer?

the right of the people to choose the government and to have their will put into practice is the democracy we all want. well all except MOTR and FD who apparently want their positions to be above the rule of the majority.

who else finds that deeply disturbing?

Quote:

still not an answer. if democracy is not at the top of the pile of government then what is?

I made my views clear enough. Please stick to what I actually said.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Quote: garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one. My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way. Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders.

Couple of points.
"Honourable politicians" is a oxymoron in the vast majority of cases.
We don't really have real democracy now and probably never have. But we now get a little bit which is something. Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite and it is still apparently treated as not being a case of electoral  fraud even though that is what happened.
Politicians are supposed to "represent" their constituents. If they don't then we may as well have no elections...it would save a lot of money. Politicians who listen to their electorates are doing their job. Politicians who spit on and turn your back on those who elect them get the sort of poll results the labs are now getting. And its not only a lesson for the Labour party.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Quote: still not an answer. if democracy is not at the top of the pile of government then what is? I made my views clear enough. Please stick to what I actually said.

your views have been anything BUT clear. when presented with the statement that democracy is the final arbiter of government you said NO. so in case I have misunderstood you can you categorically state whether or not you believe in democratic rule by the majority as the final arbiter of how government should operate? if not, what authority supersedes it?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:19pm:

cods wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:17pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:09pm: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda??? freedom to come and go at will... freedom of free speech in the media.. freedom to vote argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country.. but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is.. I suspect FD supports a form of democracy not as we know it. one that involves mysterious oversight - probably my minority parties.

Maybe a one party democracy with jails full of political prisoners and death squads. People like FD and Motr can't live with dissenters.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:19pm: cods wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:17pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:09pm: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda??? freedom to come and go at will... freedom of free speech in the media.. freedom to vote argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country.. but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is.. I suspect FD supports a form of democracy not as we know it. one that involves mysterious oversight - probably my minority parties. Maybe a one party democracy with jails full of political prisoners and death squads. People like FD and Motr can't live with dissenters.

an exaggeration but disappointingly, not a complete exaggeration. I think MOTR and FD would approve of a CT or other such action without law and enforced by force if necessary. Im serious, i think abrogating the rule of law and democracy would be considered by them as a valid tool.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:35pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:05pm: Yes, that's an important point. The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition because they knew the electorate wanted it gone. Will the Labor Party and Greens do the honourable thing and vote with the Coalition to scrap the carbon dioxide tax, given what is almost certain to be an overwhelming mandate for Tony Abbott??? The legislation to abolish workchoices was voted for by the Coalition You sure about that ???? Positive. Check if you don't believe me.

You sure that they didn't just not oppose it ????

Quote:

Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite

Is that what you think happened?


Quote:

when presented with the statement that democracy is the final arbiter of government you said NO.

OK I'll demonstrate for you. This is what it looks like when you use what people actually say rather than inventing you own fantasy debate:


freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Quote: garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one. My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way. Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders.

Quote:

so in case I have misunderstood you can you categorically state whether or not you believe in democratic rule by the majority as the final arbiter of how government should operate?

It is not the only arbiter. But this is getting a long way from the carbon tax debate. In case you are somehow unaware, we arrived at the carbon tax democratically.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:08pm: Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution. to vote for a policy that was not his and which he fundamentally and morally disagreed with? no. if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different. What about an EST. Was Abbott duty bound to support an EST. when you answer my question about labors obligation to repeal a CT then I will answer yours. IM guessing you will deflect. But at elast you are not suggesting a dictatorship as FD is.

I think you have your answer.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:32pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:19pm: cods wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:17pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:09pm: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda??? freedom to come and go at will... freedom of free speech in the media.. freedom to vote argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country.. but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is.. I suspect FD supports a form of democracy not as we know it. one that involves mysterious oversight - probably my minority parties. Maybe a one party democracy with jails full of political prisoners and death squads. People like FD and Motr can't live with dissenters. an exaggeration but disappointingly, not a complete exaggeration. I think MOTR and FD would approve of a CT or other such action without law and enforced by force if necessary. Im serious, i think abrogating the rule of law and democracy would be considered by them as a valid tool.

I don't think its an exaggeration at all it wasn't that long ago there were calls by some to have climate "deniers" executed. That is people who hold a contrary opinion to them.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:35pm:

[quote]Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite

Is that what you think happened?

That is exactly what happened.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:32pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:19pm: cods wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:17pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:09pm: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda??? freedom to come and go at will... freedom of free speech in the media.. freedom to vote argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country.. but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is.. I suspect FD supports a form of democracy not as we know it. one that involves mysterious oversight - probably my minority parties. Maybe a one party democracy with jails full of political prisoners and death squads. People like FD and Motr can't live with dissenters. an exaggeration but disappointingly, not a complete exaggeration. I think MOTR and FD would approve of a CT or other such action without law and enforced by force if necessary. Im serious, i think abrogating the rule of law and democracy would be considered by them as a valid tool. I don't think its an exaggeration at all it wasn't that long ago there were calls by some to have climate "deniers" executed. That is people who hold a contrary opinion to them.

Make it up as you go fellas. Your problem seems to be you can't handle people having a different opinion to the echo chamber. Who has said deniers should be executed.

If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies.

In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:40pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened.

No it isn't. Not on this planet.

[url][/url]
MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:44pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:38pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:32pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:19pm: cods wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:17pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:09pm: Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? so do you know of any country without "democracy"..[ free elections] that also has humanity at the top of its agenda??? freedom to come and go at will... freedom of free speech in the media.. freedom to vote argue all you like about how hard done by you are in this country.. but until its taken away from you.... we really have no idea what democracy really is.. I suspect FD supports a form of democracy not as we know it. one that involves mysterious oversight - probably my minority parties. Maybe a one party democracy with jails full of political prisoners and death squads. People like FD and Motr can't live with dissenters. an exaggeration but disappointingly, not a complete exaggeration. I think MOTR and FD would approve of a CT or other such action without law and enforced by force if necessary. Im serious, i think abrogating the rule of law and democracy would be considered by them as a valid tool. I don't think its an exaggeration at all it wasn't that long ago there were calls by some to have climate "deniers" executed. That is people who hold a contrary opinion to them. Make it up as you go fellas. Your problem seems to be you can't handle people having a different opinion to the echo chamber. Who has said deniers should be executed.

[urlhttp://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/][/url]

So it wasnt Freediver or myself.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:46pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet.

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..."
Which planet are you on by the way FD?

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So it wasnt Freediver or myself.

Never said it was....

On the issue of democracy, here is a thread where Longy, in addition to demonstrating comprehension problems, rejects outright an idea that would give us a democracy that truly respects the will of the majority.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/75

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:57pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD?

It was the "every intention" bit I was pulling you up on. Do you honestly think Gillard intended to form a minority government or that this had no impact on the outcome?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:00pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? It was the "every intention" bit I was pulling you up on. Do you honestly think Gillard intended to form a minority government or that this had no impact on the outcome?

Her intention was clearly to introduce an ETS. It was Labor Party policy and not once did she indicate that she was not going to deliver on that commitment.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:00pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? It was the "every intention" bit I was pulling you up on. Do you honestly think Gillard intended to form a minority government or that this had no impact on the outcome?

Minority government is irrelevant...she is still PM and heads up the government. Or are you saying she spinelessly followed what the Greens wanted? Wasn't that the argument against doing what was popular or democratic earlier in the thread?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:35pm:

Quote: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? [quote]when presented with the statement that democracy is the final arbiter of government you said NO.

OK I'll demonstrate for you. This is what it looks like when you use what people actually say rather than inventing you own fantasy debate:


freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Quote: garbage. godwins law is about identifying retards who have to use hitler as an argument because they lack the intellectual mettle to put a genuine argument forward. if you want to make a coherent argument as to why democracy should be subverted (which ironically is exactly what hitler did) then make one. My argument is that democracy is not above all else and should never be seen that way. Also, I have no respect for spineless poll following politicians or their cheerleaders.

Quote:

so in case I have misunderstood you can you categorically state whether or not you believe in democratic rule by the majority as the final arbiter of how government should operate?

It is not the only arbiter. But this is getting a long way from the carbon tax debate. In case you are somehow unaware, we arrived at the carbon tax democratically.[/quote]

lengthy refusal to answer the question?  so you admit that you support a mechanism ABOVE democracy? Im a little surprised at you FD. I have known for sometime that you understanding of democracy was flawed but I was unaware that you actually dont really believe in its primacy in the making or law in our society

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:05pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:00pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? It was the "every intention" bit I was pulling you up on. Do you honestly think Gillard intended to form a minority government or that this had no impact on the outcome? Her intentions were clearly to introduce an EST. It was Labor Party policy and not once did she indicate that she was not going to deliver on that commitment.

She introduced a tax she said she absolutely and emphatically wouldn't (whether you agree with it or not)...end of story. Come September she is going to get punished for that and if you think that any promises or guarantees about policy or what she may or may not plan to do announced before then is not going to be devalued on that basis you don't have a clue.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:14pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:08pm: Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution. to vote for a policy that was not his and which he fundamentally and morally disagreed with? no. if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different. What about an EST. Was Abbott duty bound to support an EST. when you answer my question about labors obligation to repeal a CT then I will answer yours. IM guessing you will deflect. But at elast you are not suggesting a dictatorship as FD is. I think you have your answer.

unless i miss something, you dont believe labor has any obligation whatsoever to respect the clearly expressed wishes of the voting public. how UNsurprising.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:44pm:

If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday.

another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'?

care to give us your opinion?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:59pm:

On the issue of democracy, here is a thread where Longy, in addition to demonstrating comprehension problems, rejects outright an idea that would give us a democracy that truly respects the will of the majority. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/75

even more pathetic that usual. this is a thread in which you have clearly expressed that democracy - ie the will of the people - is not the final arbiter of what should happen. in addition you say that there is a higher arbiter but you decline to say what that is. Your understanding of democracy is pitiful and your support for undemocratic rule is a disgrace.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:14pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:08pm: Was Abbott duty bound to vote for the Malaysian solution. to vote for a policy that was not his and which he fundamentally and morally disagreed with? no. if there had been an election mandate for the policy that would be different. What about an EST. Was Abbott duty bound to support an EST. when you answer my question about labors obligation to repeal a CT then I will answer yours. IM guessing you will deflect. But at elast you are not suggesting a dictatorship as FD is. I think you have your answer. unless i miss something, you dont believe labor has any obligation whatsoever to respect the clearly expressed wishes of the voting public. how UNsurprising.

Nice quote down the bottom longie...I hope Skip didn't put his house on em...

Quote:

Minority government is irrelevant...she is still PM and heads up the government. Or are you saying she spinelessly followed what the Greens wanted?

I am saying that you are wrong that she had every intention of performing an embarrassing back flip. It really is that simple. You are wrong.


Quote:

so you admit that you support a mechanism ABOVE democracy?

I didn't say anything about a mechanism. Liberty is not a machine.


Quote:

I have known for sometime that you understanding of democracy was flawed

Longy it was you who struggled with the basics, and you are struggling again here. Here it is again for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/75

I think a better idea than scrapping the tax would be to implement it properly, that is tax any imports that have not had a verifiable carbon tax levied at the source of the import.

That might make the playing field a bit more level, and make the tax actually work.

There are a lot of other people making the same suggestion. But you need to have international cooperation for that to work.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Quote: Minority government is irrelevant...she is still PM and heads up the government. Or are you saying she spinelessly followed what the Greens wanted? I am saying that you are wrong that she had every intention of performing an embarrassing back flip. It really is that simple. You are wrong. [quote]so you admit that you support a mechanism ABOVE democracy?

I didn't say anything about a mechanism. Liberty is not a machine.


Quote:

I have known for sometime that you understanding of democracy was flawed

Longy it was you who struggled with the basics, and you are struggling again here. Here it is again for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/75[/quote]

Liberty is just a word. without a construct to give it power and force, it is still just a word. Democracy grants that while whatever system you support, does not. It is liberty that says that no government has the right to impose policies on the people that the majority want. That is dictatorship. Liberty does not ask if the policy is right or wrong. it says that the will of the majority is the ONLY arbiter. It seems that the genuine concept of majority rule eludes or the resposibilities that go with it.

you have set to tell us what your opinion is on whether or not labor should repeal the CT in the face of an overwhelming and undeniable mandate. and if a massive electoral win is not enough would a plebiscite asking that very question suit you?  you are the one that champions direct democracy so would DD voting to be rid of the CT be okay with you?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:45pm: I think labor should take a leaf out of the libs rule book regarding asylum seekers ... 'we had the best way to combat carbon emmissions and we don't see why we should agree to anything less'. ah the old leftist doctrine: subvert democracy and the rule of law at every opportunity.

so you agree the libs under Howard are more leftist than labor?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:38pm:

There are a lot of other people making the same suggestion. But you need to have international cooperation for that to work.

just so long as we don't listen to actual voters, right? their opinion does not entitle them to a say in whether or not a CT is repealed?

Quote:

Liberty is just a word.

;D

from the guy who bangs on about democracy, but gets terribly confused the minute we talk about the will of the majority.


Quote:

without a construct to give it power and force

Longy, I know you desperately want me to tell you who to send your letter of complaint to, but there are no simple answers.


Quote:

Democracy grants that while whatever system you support, does not.

Uh-huh.


Quote:

It is liberty that says that no government has the right to impose policies on the people that the majority want.

Right...


Quote:

Liberty does not ask if the policy is right or wrong. it says that the will of the majority is the ONLY arbiter

Sure...


Quote:

you have set to tell us what your opinion is on whether or not labor should repeal the CT in the face of an overwhelming and undeniable mandate.

I have already pointed out that they have already written that repeal into law. And no, I don't think they should. I think we should keep the carbon tax.

Yes fair point FW58, that is why the Chinese economy has been booming.

They don't have to ask their people for any permission, they just do it.

It makes me wonder if democracy is the best form of government.

There again I would not want to live there.

I am officially conflicted

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:42pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:38pm: There are a lot of other people making the same suggestion. But you need to have international cooperation for that to work. just so long as we don't listen to actual voters, right? their opinion does not entitle them to a say in whether or not a CT is repealed?

and exactly how many of those voters do you think saw an off the cuff remard made during a spur of the moment interview 2 days before the election? It wasn't even repeated on the nightly news until after labor made the deal ... voting public didn't even know she had said it.

So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Quote: Liberty is just a word. ;D from the guy who bangs on about democracy, but gets terribly confused the minute we talk about the will of the majority. [quote]without a construct to give it power and force

Longy, I know you desperately want me to tell you who to send your letter of complaint to, but there are no simple answers.


Quote:

Democracy grants that while whatever system you support, does not.

Uh-huh.


Quote:

It is liberty that says that no government has the right to impose policies on the people that the majority want.

Right...


Quote:

Liberty does not ask if the policy is right or wrong. it says that the will of the majority is the ONLY arbiter

Sure...


Quote:

you have set to tell us what your opinion is on whether or not labor should repeal the CT in the face of an overwhelming and undeniable mandate.

I have already pointed out that they have already written that repeal into law. And no, I don't think they should. I think we should keep the carbon tax.[/quote]

so you support the abrogation of the right of the australian people to have their wishes honoured? so dont bank on at me about not understanding what the 'majority' means. You quite simply dont care. you want YOUR way and YOUR policies which is why you dont like major parties.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax?

not the question. the question is one of PRINCIPLE.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:32pm:

[quote]Minority government is irrelevant...she is still PM and heads up the government. Or are you saying she spinelessly followed what the Greens wanted?

I am saying that you are wrong that she had every intention of performing an embarrassing back flip. It really is that simple. You are wrong.

The proof of the pudding in this case is not in the eating and it sat there for all to see as unappealing, rancid and unpalatable as it was. Her performing a backflip holds that she actually held and would stand by the other position which she did not. She's a cheap opportunist.
She has no integrity...zero...and the electorate now knows it...and you can say I'm wrong till the cows come home...because that does not change a thing my friend for many more believe you are in fact wrong as far as Gillard is concerned.

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:42pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:38pm: There are a lot of other people making the same suggestion. But you need to have international cooperation for that to work. just so long as we don't listen to actual voters, right? their opinion does not entitle them to a say in whether or not a CT is repealed? and exactly how many of those voters do you think saw an off the cuff remard made during a spur of the moment interview 2 days before the election? It wasn't even repeated on the nightly news until after labor made the deal ... voting public didn't even know she had said it.

ah ernie... your rehashing of history is as predictable as it is inevitably wrong. Gillard said no to teh CT multiple times and was reiterated by Swan on several very very well publicised occasions.  you dont follows news very well do you? or do you just forget everything like SOB?

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:56pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:32pm: [quote]Minority government is irrelevant...she is still PM and heads up the government. Or are you saying she spinelessly followed what the Greens wanted? I am saying that you are wrong that she had every intention of performing an embarrassing back flip. It really is that simple. You are wrong. The proof of the pudding in this case is not in the eating and it sat there for all to see as unappealing, rancid and unpalatable as it was. Her performing a backflip holds that she actually held and would stand by the other position which she did not. She's a cheap opportunist. She has no integrity...zero...and the electorate now knows it...and you can say I'm wrong till the cows come home...because that does not change a thing my friend for many more believe you are in fact wrong as far as Gillard is concerned.

Ha......melielongtime

:D

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax?

I don't see what the problem is.

Abbott will follow standard policy since Menzies retired.

Under-Sell off very expensive and profitable state assets to foreign private and corporate interests

Totally trash the public service and reduce services such as health and education (except for the military budget which must never be touched because of explicit orders by our US masters)

Set up a welfare system for the rich and elite corporations and banks.

Remember the BIGGEST spending government in AUstralias history is the Howard government.

The middle classes and the poor always PAY

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:50pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:42pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:38pm: There are a lot of other people making the same suggestion. But you need to have international cooperation for that to work. just so long as we don't listen to actual voters, right? their opinion does not entitle them to a say in whether or not a CT is repealed? and exactly how many of those voters do you think saw an off the cuff remard made during a spur of the moment interview 2 days before the election? It wasn't even repeated on the nightly news until after labor made the deal ... voting public didn't even know she had said it. ah ernie... your rehashing of history is as predictable as it is inevitably wrong. Gillard said no to teh CT multiple times and was reiterated by Swan on several very very well publicised occasions.  you dont follows news very well do you? or do you just forget everything like SOB?

How do you know when pippylongylooser has nothing? ... he drags SOB into it .

care to provide evidence of where she said there will be no carbon tax other than during the one interview 2 days before the election?

Pre-election
They will continue to drag the party line

Post election
(1) Accept the voters' mandate to the LIBs to get rid off the CT and remain in limbo for 6-9 years
(2) Be stubborn and allow Abbott to be the longest serving PM EVER


If they are going to accept the voter's mandate - they will need to do several things
(a) Stay with Gillard or get rid off her
(b) What sort of speech they will give about the CT
(c) What they will do in the Senate with the voting until July 2014
(d) The new look ALP front bench ala Rudd supporter and Gillard supporter - this issue won't go away. Gillard is damaged beyond repair. Rudd is close to political death as well given recent events


I remember Nelson giving a very sincere acknowledgement about Workchoices and a heart felt acknowledgment of the Aborigines

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax?

What for?

No carbon tax - no need for the other initiatives

The carbon tax was supposed to lower global temperature

ohh ... Gumpy's into fairy tales !!!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax?

How much will be taken from aged pensioners?
By how much will prices fall?

Better keep at least one state out of coalition hands, or we will be looking at a rise in GST.




Take note, cods....

---

Anyone care to hazard a guess at the other question??

:)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:29pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion?

I think that about 100% of the people who vote for Labor would be expecting them to continue fighting for a price on carbon.

Should Labor act in support of the people who voted for them of for the people who voted against them?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? I think that about 100% of the people who vote for Labor would be expecting them to continue fighting for a price on carbon. Should Labor act in support of the people who voted for them of for the people who voted against them?

Plus 100% of people that vote GREENS, so even on worse case scenario that is around 45% of the population that demand a price on carbon. bugger the conga line, if they want to push through with their hatred for future generations by denying climate change let the wankers go to a DD. most governments that have gone to a DD have suffered. So it can only help Labor and the GREENS for Abbott to go to one. In fact it will take so long to get to that point that by then the country would have suffered under phony tony for at least a couple of years, plenty long enough to see him as the lying fraud he is and kick his ass out of the lodge.

Why on earth would you want to be party to such an act of vandalism. Deep down even Abbott is probably hoping he won't have to consummate his Faustian pact.

Quote:

so you support the abrogation of the right of the australian people to have their wishes honoured?

Longy you are taking this to absurd lengths. You are now insisting that anyone who has their own opinion that differs from the majority wants to dismantle democracy. Think about what you are saying. Please.


Quote:

so dont bank on at me about not understanding what the 'majority' means.

But you don't. Look at the other thread - six pages of you not understanding the simplest concepts and rejecting a proposal that would actually achieve rule by majority, because you feared it would undermine the authority of political parties. You consistently put the rights of political parties above the people, as if our democracy is there to serve them. You made the absurd claim that everyone on that thread disagrees with me. You also insisted in that thread and many others that a party with minority public support should still be able to win on the grounds that it has a significant plurality. It is you who rejects rule by majority, not me. Hypocrite.

www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/81#81

www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/61#61

Nam:


Quote:

She has no integrity...zero...and the electorate now knows it...and you can say I'm wrong till the cows come home.

But you are wrong. You said she had every intention of doing this. Do you expect us to take you seriously.

Work choices was the main, but not the only, reason that I voted Labor in 2007.

In any democracy, the majority is supposed to rule, and hence, the Coalition should have supported its removal, as per the mandate of the Australian people.

To their credit, they did so.

Labor lost any chance of getting my vote as soon as they broke their promise back in early 2011, and when we vote them out this year, they should remove the carbon tax, as per the mandate of the Australian people.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:24pm:

Quote: so you support the abrogation of the right of the australian people to have their wishes honoured? Longy you are taking this to absurd lengths. You are now insisting that anyone who has their own opinion that differs from the majority wants to dismantle democracy. Think about what you are saying. Please. [quote]so dont bank on at me about not understanding what the 'majority' means.

But you don't. Look at the other thread - six pages of you not understanding the simplest concepts and rejecting a proposal that would actually achieve rule by majority, because you feared it would undermine the authority of political parties. You consistently put the rights of political parties above the people, as if our democracy is there to serve them. You made the absurd claim that everyone on that thread disagrees with me. You also insisted in that thread and many others that a party with minority public support should still be able to win on the grounds that it has a significant plurality. It is you who rejects rule by majority, not me. Hypocrite.

www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/81#81

www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358051073/61#61

Nam:


Quote:

She has no integrity...zero...and the electorate now knows it...and you can say I'm wrong till the cows come home.

But you are wrong. You said she had every intention of doing this. Do you expect us to take you seriously.[/quote]

no. just you. i said that in a democracy, the wish of the people is the ultimate determinant of what happens. you said it was not and that there were other considerations besides the wish of the majoriy. if you wish to clarify this position with some actual detail instead of bluster then you may have a point but to date all you ahve done is confirm that you do NOT grant the wishes of the majority a primacy.

you liek a CT. you want a CT but that is not the question. the question is whether or not labor has a moral right to reject the wishes of the people in not repealing the CT. You have declined to answer that question - a matter or principle.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:57pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD?

People seem to be upset about the word tax even though they will never actually pay any.

Gillard argued for weeks that a fixed price wasn't a tax and I can easily understand why she would have believed that to be true. Imagine agreeing to a fixed price on carbon which is very much like a fixed start to an ETS and then to later find it can technically be called a tax even though nobody pays any tax and the ATO never gets any money from it.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:08pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? People seem to be upset about the word tax even though they will never actually pay any. Gillard argued for weeks that a fixed price wasn't a tax and I can easily understand why she would have believed that to be true. Imagine agreeing to a fixed price on carbon which is very much like a fixed start to an ETS and then to later find it can technically be called a tax even though nobody pays any tax and the ATO never gets any money from it.

so do YOU have an opinion on the actual question as whether or not a labor senate should support the repeal in the face of an overwhelming mandate for the CT? I would be interested in seeing how highly you regard principle in such matters.

john_g wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Work choices was the main, but not the only, reason that I voted Labor in 2007. In any democracy, the majority is supposed to rule, and hence, the Coalition should have supported its removal, as per the mandate of the Australian people. To their credit, they did so. Labor lost any chance of getting my vote as soon as they broke their promise back in early 2011, and when we vote them out this year, they should remove the carbon tax, as per the mandate of the Australian people.

To their credit, they did so.

People keep saying that but as I recall they just didn't oppose the changes, they didn't support them. For the Liberals this was about getting rid of a nasty piece of legislation which was hurting them politically.

Today they are ready to bring a lot of it back - so much for that mandate and workchoices are finished.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:08pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? People seem to be upset about the word tax even though they will never actually pay any. Gillard argued for weeks that a fixed price wasn't a tax and I can easily understand why she would have believed that to be true. Imagine agreeing to a fixed price on carbon which is very much like a fixed start to an ETS and then to later find it can technically be called a tax even though nobody pays any tax and the ATO never gets any money from it. so do YOU have an opinion on the actual question as whether or not a labor senate should support the repeal in the face of an overwhelming mandate for the CT? I would be interested in seeing how highly you regard principle in such matters.

You didn't seem to mind the way Abbott went against the Rudd ETS when there was a clear mandate to introduce it. You seem to like the mandates which suit you but just as happy to ignore the ones you don't like.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:08pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? People seem to be upset about the word tax even though they will never actually pay any. Gillard argued for weeks that a fixed price wasn't a tax and I can easily understand why she would have believed that to be true. Imagine agreeing to a fixed price on carbon which is very much like a fixed start to an ETS and then to later find it can technically be called a tax even though nobody pays any tax and the ATO never gets any money from it. so do YOU have an opinion on the actual question as whether or not a Labor senate should support the repeal in the face of an overwhelming mandate for the CT? I would be interested in seeing how highly you regard principle in such matters.

so do YOU have an opinion on the actual question

I posted a comment earlier but I am not real sure.

I think the people who vote for them would want Labor to continue supporting action on carbon dioxide. We seen what happened to the Democrats when they sold out their supporters wishes in this same regard involving the GST.

Meg claimed to have honoured the mandate and their support base had taken their pre election guarantee of opposing the GST a little more seriously - the Democrats no longer exist as a result of taking the type of advice you are suggesting for Labor to follow.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:14pm:

Quote: it would appear that you actively support a dictatorship. Perhaps you should stick to what I actually say. [quote]at the moment you are looking and sounding exactly like the Hitler example you invoked previously.

Democracy gave us Hitler. It did not remove him.[/quote]

freediver, I agree. The Germans voted for a dictator. They voted for a mass-murderer. They voted for the instigator of the Holocaust. This is a great example of how "democracy" isn't a fool-proof system. This is why checks and balances exist. This is why we have separation of powers. This is why we have constitutional law and put limits on the powers that the police have to arrest and detain people, limits on the military, limits on the Head of State and executive branch. Democracy isn't enough. You need good laws and you need rule of law.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:31pm:

even more pathetic that usual. this is a thread in which you have clearly expressed that democracy - ie the will of the people - is not the final arbiter of what should happen. in addition you say that there is a higher arbiter but you decline to say what that is. Your understanding of democracy is pitiful and your support for undemocratic rule is a disgrace.

There are several good reasons why "democracy" should not be the final arbiter. They are what freediver suggested, it is when the people wish for something that does not uphold the values of liberty and humanity. If the purpose of democracy is to vote for people who uphold these values and the people want something contrary to the values of liberty and humanity, then the government must not do what the people want. Here is what freediver posted:


freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:02pm: then what IS above democracy? Ive said that God is but other than Him. exactly who or what do you suggest is above democracy Liberty. Democracy. Humanity. Sound familiar? Quote: and how is that super-democratic rule imposed or decided? Undemocratically.

Like freediver said, the values of humanity and liberty must be upheld undemocratically and I agree with that.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

Liberty is just a word. without a construct to give it power and force, it is still just a word. Democracy grants that while whatever system you support, does not.

The whole point of democracy is to vote for people who will do your bidding. If we want liberty, let's hope our preferred candidates give us liberty. They are agents that act on our behalf. You don't need a "mechanism" built into the system to create "liberty" when you've got people installed in parliament to advocate for it. That's how the system works.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

It is liberty that says that no government has the right to impose policies on the people that the majority want.

Liberty is about freedom to act, not about whether or not someone imposes policies on your country. You still have your freedom to act. You can protest as much as you like. Your freedom is not being inhibited. Shout as loud as you want. Make as much noise as possible. You won't be arrested.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

you have set to tell us what your opinion is on whether or not labor should repeal the CT in the face of an overwhelming and undeniable mandate. and if a massive electoral win is not enough would a plebiscite asking that very question suit you?  you are the one that champions direct democracy so would DD voting to be rid of the CT be okay with you?

Thanks for getting back to the point.

skippy. wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:33pm:

Plus 100% of people that vote GREENS, so even on worse case scenario that is around 45% of the population that demand a price on carbon. bugger the conga line, if they want to push through with their hatred for future generations by denying climate change let the wankers go to a DD. most governments that have gone to a DD have suffered. So it can only help Labor and the GREENS for Abbott to go to one. In fact it will take so long to get to that point that by then the country would have suffered under phony tony for at least a couple of years, plenty long enough to see him as the lying fraud he is and kick his ass out of the lodge.

Rudd won the election by 52/48 and he claimed a mandate to get rid off Workchoices

You supported this claim at 52%

So at 45% ALP and 55% LIBs we still have a better mandate than Rudd did

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:08pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? People seem to be upset about the word tax even though they will never actually pay any. Gillard argued for weeks that a fixed price wasn't a tax and I can easily understand why she would have believed that to be true. Imagine agreeing to a fixed price on carbon which is very much like a fixed start to an ETS and then to later find it can technically be called a tax even though nobody pays any tax and the ATO never gets any money from it.

Good so there will be no problem if it is withdrawn.

Quote:

the question is whether or not labor has a moral right to reject the wishes of the people in not repealing the CT. You have declined to answer that question - a matter or principle.

It is my view that parties should reflect the wishes of their supporters, reflect what they stand for and do what they think is right. Not to try to second guess democracy. Election time is when they get judged on their performance and if necessary, corrected. Any time a party rejects their own policy due to an obvious mandate, this is a calculated move to avoid bleeding more votes, and a necessary one for the survival of the party in cases where they are in a position to block the change in the senate, but would lose even worse at the next election if they did so.

I have no qualms about supporting Labor's carbon tax and will be equally supportive of Tony Abbott when he does a backflip and keeps the tax. That we, way keep the tax, and all three parties get to blame each other for it. Except maybe the Greens. They would probably be willing to take credit for it. I am looking forward this election to finally having a public debate on the economics of climate change. We should have done this a long time ago.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:22am:

Quote: the question is whether or not labor has a moral right to reject the wishes of the people in not repealing the CT. You have declined to answer that question - a matter or principle. It is my view that parties should reflect the wishes of their supporters, reflect what they stand for and do what they think is right. Not to try to second guess democracy. Election time is when they get judged on their performance and if necessary, corrected. Any time a party rejects their own policy due to an obvious mandate, this is a calculated move to avoid bleeding more votes, and a necessary one for the survival of the party in cases where they are in a position to block the change in the senate, but would lose even worse at the next election if they did so. I have no qualms about supporting Labor's carbon tax and will be equally supportive of Tony Abbott when he does a backflip and keeps the tax. That we, way keep the tax, and all three parties get to blame each other for it. Except maybe the Greens. They would probably be willing to take credit for it. I am looking forward this election to finally having a public debate on the economics of climate change. We should have done this a long time ago.

How can you when you don't even understand and/or acknowledge the existence and impact of the Kyoto penalties?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:26am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:22am: Quote: the question is whether or not labor has a moral right to reject the wishes of the people in not repealing the CT. You have declined to answer that question - a matter or principle. It is my view that parties should reflect the wishes of their supporters, reflect what they stand for and do what they think is right. Not to try to second guess democracy. Election time is when they get judged on their performance and if necessary, corrected. Any time a party rejects their own policy due to an obvious mandate, this is a calculated move to avoid bleeding more votes, and a necessary one for the survival of the party in cases where they are in a position to block the change in the senate, but would lose even worse at the next election if they did so. I have no qualms about supporting Labor's carbon tax and will be equally supportive of Tony Abbott when he does a backflip and keeps the tax. That we, way keep the tax, and all three parties get to blame each other for it. Except maybe the Greens. They would probably be willing to take credit for it. I am looking forward this election to finally having a public debate on the economics of climate change. We should have done this a long time ago. How can you when you don't even understand and/or acknowledge the existence and impact of the Kyoto penalties?

this is Gumpy's little brainstorm re carbon tax .. the Kyoto agreement ... if Abbot stands by his beliefs he can pull out of Kyoto, we wouldn't be the first country to do so ... no one can make him pay the penalties  .... Abbotts problem is that he wants it both ways

Kyoto.

China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together.

In short -


FAIL

So why did we sign it again??  :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:46am:

Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o

its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes?

John Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:48am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes?

Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then.
I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?"

Maybe I was in England that day....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:51am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day....

30% penalty and Labor won't tell us about it

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:05am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:51am: John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day.... 30% penalty and Labor won't tell us about it

are you suggesting it's some sort of secret?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:51am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day....

and once again you prove your stupidity.

John Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:06am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:05am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:51am: John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day.... 30% penalty and Labor won't tell us about it are you suggesting it's some sort of secret?

so you want the 30% penalty?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:23am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:06am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:05am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:51am: John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day.... 30% penalty and Labor won't tell us about it are you suggesting it's some sort of secret? so you want the 30% penalty?

no .. I want them to meet the targets . You are the one opposed to the tax, OK fine do it your way then stop  .. pull out of kyoto and you won't need to wrry about the penatly that isn't really a penalty

namnugenot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:11pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:00pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:35pm: Although as was the case at the last election you can lie your ar$e off with every intention of doing the exact opposite Is that what you think happened? That is exactly what happened. No it isn't. Not on this planet. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead blah, blah, blah..." Which planet are you on by the way FD? It was the "every intention" bit I was pulling you up on. Do you honestly think Gillard intended to form a minority government or that this had no impact on the outcome? Minority government is irrelevant...she is still PM and heads up the government. Or are you saying she spinelessly followed what the Greens wanted? Wasn't that the argument against doing what was popular or democratic earlier in the thread?

Any argument that Gillard intended to introduce a Tax at the time she said she wouldn't is ridiculous. Fact is that she was arguing weeks after the election that a fixed price was not a tax.

The whole thing is not much more than a 3 year media beat up. While it can technically be called a tax it is the most pathetic tax I have ever seen, A tax where nobody pays any tax, a tax where the tax man gets nothing.

While the commitment was technically broken it was clearly unintentional and had little or no impact.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:37am:

Any argument that Gillard intended to introduce a Tax at the time she said she wouldn't is ridiculous. Fact is that she was arguing weeks after the election that a fixed price was not a tax. The whole thing is not much more than a 3 year media beat up. While it can technically be called a tax it is the most pathetic tax I have ever seen, A tax where nobody pays any tax, a tax where the tax man gets nothing. While the commitment was technically broken it was clearly unintentional and had little or no impact.

Call it whatever you want

Call it onion flavour if that's your fancy

It smells like a tax

It looks like a tax

It sounds like a tax

So it is a tax

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:37am: Any argument that Gillard intended to introduce a Tax at the time she said she wouldn't is ridiculous. Fact is that she was arguing weeks after the election that a fixed price was not a tax. The whole thing is not much more than a 3 year media beat up. While it can technically be called a tax it is the most pathetic tax I have ever seen, A tax where nobody pays any tax, a tax where the tax man gets nothing. While the commitment was technically broken it was clearly unintentional and had little or no impact. Call it whatever you want Call it onion flavour if that's your fancy It smells like a tax It looks like a tax It sounds like a tax So it is a tax

you smell like Gumpy
you look like gumpy
you sound like gumpy
you run like gumpy

therefore you are

Forrest Gump

John Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:48am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes?

No, it isn't. Most people could care less about Kyoto. It is pointless.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 1:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? No, it isn't. Most people could care less about Kyoto. It is pointless.

that wasn't the case back then when he signed it ....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:51am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day....

Now that you mention it I don't recall ant referendum

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 2:43pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:51am: John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day.... Now that you mention it I don't recall ant referendum

....any...

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:37am: Any argument that Gillard intended to introduce a Tax at the time she said she wouldn't is ridiculous. Fact is that she was arguing weeks after the election that a fixed price was not a tax. The whole thing is not much more than a 3 year media beat up. While it can technically be called a tax it is the most pathetic tax I have ever seen, A tax where nobody pays any tax, a tax where the tax man gets nothing. While the commitment was technically broken it was clearly unintentional and had little or no impact. Call it whatever you want Call it onion flavour if that's your fancy It smells like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? It looks like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? It sounds like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? So it is a tax Yes Techncally it can be called a tax even though in almost all ways it has nothing in common with any tax.

I think that is in fact the point it dosen't look smell feel or sound anything like any tax.

That is the reason that it took literally months before anyone could point out the reason why technically it can be called a tax and that the vast majority still don't understand the reason.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 2:43pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:51am: John Smith wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Kyoto. China emissions increases were FIVE TIMES that of the Kyoto countries' reductions added together. In short - FAIL So why did we sign it again??  :o its what the public wanted .... are you suggesting the govt. ignore the voters wishes? Strange, I was still on the Australian electoral roll then. I don't recall the question "Should we sign the Kyoto Treaty?" Maybe I was in England that day.... Now that you mention it I don't recall ant referendum ....any...

Wasn't the ant referendum held in conjunction with the GST referendum???

Mr. Smith is right:


Quote:

this is Gumpy's little brainstorm re carbon tax .. the Kyoto agreement ... if Abbot stands by his beliefs he can pull out of Kyoto, we wouldn't be the first country to do so ... no one can make him pay the penalties  .... Abbotts problem is that he wants it both ways

Australia can denunciate any time it wishes, if it wishes.  Canada has.

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:29pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion?

Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right?

Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it.

I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is.

So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal.

If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right? Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it. I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is. So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal. If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out.

Then they will lose the election

Then they will be forced to go to a DD

At this DD - those Labor and Greens MPs who are still licking their wounds will be politically chased out of town for good

So how many Labor and Greens MPs will do this after taking a huge defeat?

That remains to be seen.

Logic says they will roll over

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:10pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right? Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it. I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is. So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal. If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out. Then they will lose the election Then they will be forced to go to a DD At this DD - those Labor and Greens MPs who are still licking their wounds will be politically chased out of town for good So how many Labor and Greens MPs will do this after taking a huge defeat? That remains to be seen. Logic says they will roll over

Come on maqqa. Theres no way the people will still have deep hatred for labor by then. I mean, who remembers that carbon tax thing from 3 years ago.............. no-one. Not a single person.


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 4:20pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:02am: Dnarever wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:37am: Any argument that Gillard intended to introduce a Tax at the time she said she wouldn't is ridiculous. Fact is that she was arguing weeks after the election that a fixed price was not a tax. The whole thing is not much more than a 3 year media beat up. While it can technically be called a tax it is the most pathetic tax I have ever seen, A tax where nobody pays any tax, a tax where the tax man gets nothing. While the commitment was technically broken it was clearly unintentional and had little or no impact. Call it whatever you want Call it onion flavour if that's your fancy It smells like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? It looks like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? It sounds like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? So it is a tax Yes Techncally it can be called a tax even though in almost all ways it has nothing in common with any tax. I think that is in fact the point it dosen't look smell feel or sound anything like any tax. That is the reason that it took literally months before anyone could point out the reason why technically it can be called a tax and that the vast majority still don't understand the reason.

Lets look at the fact that Gillard refuse to call it a tax

Lets look at the definition of a TAX


Quote:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tax a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions: higher taxes will dampen consumer spending

Idiots from the left will try to divert attention by saying that the money won't go to the state

The key issue here is a tax is defined as a compulsory contribution to state revenue

This pricing of carbon is compulsory to the top 500 companies and the revenue collected goes to state revenue

So it looks like a tax, smells like a tax and works like a tax then it is a tax

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:55pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:51pm: So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax? not the question. the question is one of PRINCIPLE.

Is that like, "trust me. I'm a Politician"


Actually, it's more like -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

Politicians, virtually all of them, have no interest in principles, they are only into their own short term advantages!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:12pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:51pm: So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax? What for? No carbon tax - no need for the other initiatives The carbon tax was supposed to lower global temperature

Rubbish, it is a tax!
A net earner, for government Revenue!!
And, as such, IF it is repealed then Revenue will Decline, which in the current Economic climate means that it must be replaced with higher rates on existing other Taxes & another new tax will be introduced!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:46pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:51pm: So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax? What for? No carbon tax - no need for the other initiatives The carbon tax was supposed to lower global temperature Rubbish, it is a tax! A net earner, for government Revenue!! And, as such, IF it is repealed then Revenue will Decline, which in the current Economic climate means that it must be replaced with higher rates on existing other Taxes & another new tax will be introduced!!!

Why?

We didn't need it in 2007 when GDP was lower and still have a surplus

Now that GDP is higher - we've had 5 record deficits

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:46pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:51pm: So, IF the Carbon Tax is repealed, what existing tax or taxes will be raised &/or what new tax will be introduced, to offset the Revenue raised by the Carbon Tax? What for? No carbon tax - no need for the other initiatives The carbon tax was supposed to lower global temperature Rubbish, it is a tax! A net earner, for government Revenue!! And, as such, IF it is repealed then Revenue will Decline, which in the current Economic climate means that it must be replaced with higher rates on existing other Taxes & another new tax will be introduced!!!

The carbon tax is not a net earner. You will have penalties and donations on top of what has already been given back as an incentive.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:21pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 4:20pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:02am: Dnarever wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:37am: Any argument that Gillard intended to introduce a Tax at the time she said she wouldn't is ridiculous. Fact is that she was arguing weeks after the election that a fixed price was not a tax. The whole thing is not much more than a 3 year media beat up. While it can technically be called a tax it is the most pathetic tax I have ever seen, A tax where nobody pays any tax, a tax where the tax man gets nothing. While the commitment was technically broken it was clearly unintentional and had little or no impact. Call it whatever you want Call it onion flavour if that's your fancy It smells like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? It looks like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? It sounds like a tax  Well actuall that is the point it dosent? So it is a tax Yes Techncally it can be called a tax even though in almost all ways it has nothing in common with any tax. I think that is in fact the point it dosen't look smell feel or sound anything like any tax. That is the reason that it took literally months before anyone could point out the reason why technically it can be called a tax and that the vast majority still don't understand the reason. Lets look at the fact that Gillard refuse to call it a tax Lets look at the definition of a TAX Quote: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tax a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions: higher taxes will dampen consumer spending Idiots from the left will try to divert attention by saying that the money won't go to the state The key issue here is a tax is defined as a compulsory contribution to state revenue This pricing of carbon is compulsory to the top 500 companies and the revenue collected goes to state revenue So it looks like a tax, smells like a tax and works like a tax then it is a tax

the money won't go to the state

Well right no it wont??? but then you say that it does -  collected goes to state revenue Well no it doesn't as you infered previously. The money is audited through that process but ultimatly goes to an independant authority or returned in compensation.

This pricing of carbon is compulsory to the top 500 200 companies and the revenue collected goes to state revenue

The 200 companies buy the equivilant to carbon credits which have a value owned by the company. The money collected is either returned in compensation or passed to a statutory authority to be used on low carbon inititives etc. Nothing ends up in the consolidated revinue pool or is kept by government.

The key issue here is a tax is defined as a compulsory contribution to state revenue

The process of buying something with value is different from a tax.

The zero involvment from the ATO is typically different from a tax.

A statutory authority allocating the spend is different from a tax.

100% give back (most cases) in compensation is different from a tax.

As Macca points out the only reason it can be labled a tax is because technically it is the government who collects the money in the first instance and not because it acts like a tax in any way.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right? Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it. I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is. So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal. If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out.

thanks for actually giving a cogent opinion base on the OP instead of the typical deflection. However, it is also clear that you dont value the concept of the mandate at all. But while that is your right does that not also mean that you dont think parties should value the opinions of the public unless they agree with them? Taking it only a little further isnt that a justification for breaking promise etc?

I'd like to hear more on why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored by a party that has just been hammered, Is that not a fundamental breach of democracy.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 12:15pm:

However, it is also clear that you dont value the concept of the mandate at all.

The only time a mandate seems to matter, in fact the only time a mandate is achieved is when the coalition wins an election.
Why the hell should Labor respect a mandate when Rudd went to the polls promising an ETS, he won, Turnbull was respecting that "MANDATE" & Good old Tony came along, screwed Malcolm & gave a big "bugger You" to the Australian voting public.
And so we are where we are today.

So NO, in fact I reckon Labor should adopt Tony Opposition's line.
Oppose EVERYTHING, TRASH EVERYTHING, BUGGER EVERYTHING & EVERYONE, SOOK until Government is achieved.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right? Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it. I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is. So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal. If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out. thanks for actually giving a cogent opinion base on the OP instead of the typical deflection. However, it is also clear that you dont value the concept of the mandate at all. But while that is your right does that not also mean that you dont think parties should value the opinions of the public unless they agree with them? Taking it only a little further isnt that a justification for breaking promise etc? I'd like to hear more on why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored by a party that has just been hammered, Is that not a fundamental breach of democracy.

why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored

I don't recall you being outraged by Abbotts performance in opposing the Rudd ETS where there was a clear and overwhelming mandate from the 2007 election.

It seems that some mandates require support but others don't.

Longweekend, the mandate to which you refer is given to the party that wins the election, right?

It is up to that party to exercise that mandate. Where they cannot, for whatever reason, they need to explain that to the nation.

Where an Opposition party agrees with a government, then it can use its votes to assist the government to exercise its mandate.

Where they do not support a government policy, then the Opposition party is under no obligation to support the government. Their obligation is to those whose votes they won and who expect them to be true to their election policy.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 12:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right? Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it. I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is. So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal. If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out. thanks for actually giving a cogent opinion base on the OP instead of the typical deflection. However, it is also clear that you dont value the concept of the mandate at all. But while that is your right does that not also mean that you dont think parties should value the opinions of the public unless they agree with them? Taking it only a little further isnt that a justification for breaking promise etc? I'd like to hear more on why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored by a party that has just been hammered, Is that not a fundamental breach of democracy. why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored I don't recall you being outraged by Abbotts performance in opposing the Rudd ETS where there was a clear and overwhelming mandate from the 2007 election. It seems that some mandates require support but others don't.

Do you want a debate on what is a mandate? Simply winning and election is not necessarily a mandate. it is more complex than that. So do you want to discuss, debate and generally try and work out what a mandate is or are we just going to throw a toddler-style hissy fit about it?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Longweekend, the mandate to which you refer is given to the party that wins the election, right? It is up to that party to exercise that mandate. Where they cannot, for whatever reason, they need to explain that to the nation. Where an Opposition party agrees with a government, then it can use its votes to assist the government to exercise its mandate. Where they do not support a government policy, then the Opposition party is under no obligation to support the government. Their obligation is to those whose votes they won and who expect them to be true to their election policy.

You really don't know what a mandate is. it is an expressed wish given to the government in an undeniable manner that SHOULD trump opposition even if the oppositions posesses the capability to thwart it. It is MORALITY vs LEGALITY. it is a higher standard.

no wonder a leftie doesnt get it LOL!

Smithy hit the nail on the head, Rudd had a mandate and Abbott ignored it ,so bugger phony tony Labor should stick to their guns and whine like little bitches for three years, seems to have worked for phony tony and the solid gold dance troupe.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 2:37pm: Longweekend, the mandate to which you refer is given to the party that wins the election, right? It is up to that party to exercise that mandate. Where they cannot, for whatever reason, they need to explain that to the nation. Where an Opposition party agrees with a government, then it can use its votes to assist the government to exercise its mandate. Where they do not support a government policy, then the Opposition party is under no obligation to support the government. Their obligation is to those whose votes they won and who expect them to be true to their election policy. You really don't know what a mandate is. it is an expressed wish given to the government in an undeniable manner that SHOULD trump opposition even if the oppositions posesses the capability to thwart it. It is MORALITY vs LEGALITY. it is a higher standard. no wonder a leftie doesnt get it LOL!

rubbish ... if I vote for labor it's because I want labor to do what they promise prior to the election ... if they lose the election I still have no desire to (in this case) revoke the carbon tax .. if I had wanted that i would have voted lib ..

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 12:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:29pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:44pm: If you follow longweekend's "logic" Opposition parties should vote for all Government policies. In fact, Opposition MPs shouldn't bother turning up to Parliament all, just take three years' paid holiday. another leftie who unsurprisingly has little concept of or respect for the democratic process. the question at hand is 'should labor repeal the CT if the substantial majority of australians want them to and it is expressed at an election'? care to give us your opinion? Wow, you do a great line in sweeping generalisations! All "lefties" think alike, walk alike, even look alike, right? Saves you from having to think logically, which is good, because you suck at it. I would be happy to give my opinion. Here it is. So long as Labor goes into the election promising to retain the carbon tax, then it should remain faithful to its voters and vote against repeal. If there is anything of this opinion you find hard to understand, just let me know and I'll try to help you out. thanks for actually giving a cogent opinion base on the OP instead of the typical deflection. However, it is also clear that you dont value the concept of the mandate at all. But while that is your right does that not also mean that you dont think parties should value the opinions of the public unless they agree with them? Taking it only a little further isnt that a justification for breaking promise etc? I'd like to hear more on why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored by a party that has just been hammered, Is that not a fundamental breach of democracy. why you think a massive mandate given by the people at an election can be ignored I don't recall you being outraged by Abbotts performance in opposing the Rudd ETS where there was a clear and overwhelming mandate from the 2007 election. It seems that some mandates require support but others don't. Do you want a debate on what is a mandate? Simply winning and election is not necessarily a mandate. it is more complex than that. So do you want to discuss, debate and generally try and work out what a mandate is or are we just going to throw a toddler-style hissy fit about it?

Do you want a debate on what is a mandate? Simply winning and election is not necessarily a mandate. it is more complex than that. So do you want to discuss

With the GST a mandate was claimed but the intention of the voters is shown to have been very different.

Another case of your selective moral stands.

Both parties going to an election asking to implement an ETS is no mandate.

But one party going for a GST where there is a huge campaign in the senate saying it can be blocked there and the majority of the vote clearly going against it and there is a mandate even with under 50% of the vote and the need of a third party to commit suicide to get it through.

Now we have a pre claim on a mandate which is not likely to eventuate.

I think I see the patern - if its for the Liberals it is a mandate and if not its no mandate.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 2:37pm: Longweekend, the mandate to which you refer is given to the party that wins the election, right? It is up to that party to exercise that mandate. Where they cannot, for whatever reason, they need to explain that to the nation. Where an Opposition party agrees with a government, then it can use its votes to assist the government to exercise its mandate. Where they do not support a government policy, then the Opposition party is under no obligation to support the government. Their obligation is to those whose votes they won and who expect them to be true to their election policy. You really don't know what a mandate is. it is an expressed wish given to the government in an undeniable manner that SHOULD trump opposition even if the oppositions posesses the capability to thwart it. It is MORALITY vs LEGALITY. it is a higher standard. no wonder a leftie doesnt get it LOL!

Your sweeping generalisations yet again! Can't you play a different tune, this one is getting boooooring.

The Carbon Tax stinks as much as the carcass of that fish Freediver is holding, only three days later.

It was the tax  no one wanted, the tax Julia Gillard said without doubt she would not bring in.

It has hurt business big time and has helped hundreds of Australian Businesses close their doors.

It has help boost the cost of Energy across the board in a climate where people are really struggling to make ends meet. I'm talking the average worker here, the bread and butter of the Country.

It is an an obscene tax that accomplishes nothing but hurt to the Australian people and IT WILL AND MUST GO!

red baron wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 6:53pm:

The Carbon Tax stinks as much as the carcass of that fish Freediver is holding, only three days later. It was the tax  no one wanted, the tax Julia Gillard said without doubt she would not bring in. It has hurt business big time and has helped hundreds of Australian Businesses close their doors. It has help boost the cost of Energy across the board in a climate where people are really struggling to make ends meet. I'm talking the average worker here, the bread and butter of the Country. It is an an obscene tax that accomplishes nothing but hurt to the Australian people and IT WILL AND MUST GO!

I'm sure you have evidence to support your claims ... as a former cop you would understand that without evidence it's all bullsh1t .

Hundreds of busiensses closed the doors because of the carbon tax??  :D :D name 10 .

red baron wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 6:53pm:

The Carbon Tax stinks as much as the carcass of that fish Freediver is holding, only three days later. It was the tax  no one wanted, the tax Julia Gillard said without doubt she would not bring in. It has hurt business big time and has helped hundreds of Australian Businesses close their doors. It has help boost the cost of Energy across the board in a climate where people are really struggling to make ends meet. I'm talking the average worker here, the bread and butter of the Country. It is an an obscene tax that accomplishes nothing but hurt to the Australian people and IT WILL AND MUST GO!

It was the tax that nobody will ever pay.

It was the tax that was fully compensated for.

It has hurt business big time and has helped hundreds of Australian Businesses close their doors.

What a load of rubbish - almost nobody even noticed it.

I'm talking the average worker here The one who was either fully compensated or over compensated.

Quote:

Do you want a debate on what is a mandate?

Longy last I heard you were afraid to have that debate. Apparently you prefer the simple minded insistence that an election is a referendum on a single issue.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Quote: Do you want a debate on what is a mandate? Longy last I heard you were afraid to have that debate. Apparently you prefer the simple minded insistence that an election is a referendum on a single issue.

im quite happy to have the debate but I fear it might be beyond you because the question is complex and not at all likely to get full agreement. When you think there is a mandate for the carbon tax then you are unlikely to be able to comprehend and argument based on a majority viewpoint..

MANDATE :

75% of Lower House seats
Control of BOTH houses as long as issue is raised in campaign(unlike W/C)

OR Bobbies favourite Mag

http://www.donegaldollop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/lilymandate-cover.jpg


I'll look forward to my holiday when he sooks to a mod, can we make it a month this time?

dsmithy... dont you think your definition of a mandate is perhaps a little over-the-top. While such a scenario would obviously be a mandate it would ironically not matter since total control already existed.

i think the senate majority is perhaps an unfair one since getting a majority is exceptionally difficult and rare. in addition, given that senate elections are HALF-elections, a massive mandate in an election would show up in the lower house but probably not in the senate.

Would you like to proscribe a circumstance that is your MINIMUM requirement for a mandate?

Also the common use of the term 'mandate' in political terms is a vote from the people that clearly identifies that they or a specific policy has voter approval and should therefore be passed without opposition.

and yes that picture was funny in a cringe-worthy  sort of fashion. and it is rather pitiful about the risk you take of getting banned for this. I was banned for a week recently and I have no idea why. the moderators (whoever they are!) dish it out but never explain it. you can hardly modify your behaviour if you aren't informed of an infraction either bfore the ban or after.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

dsmithy... dont you think your definition of a mandate is perhaps a little over-the-top

NO


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

Would you like to proscribe a circumstance that is your MINIMUM requirement for a mandate?

75% of lower house seats or control of both houses



longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

political terms is a vote from the people that clearly identifies that they or a specific policy has voter approval and should therefore be passed without opposition.

Pretty sure the above covers that.

You can't achieve my criteria you have no mandate & therefore must use your negotiation skills to pass your bill.
If its knocked back repeatedly go to a DD, do you believe its in the best interest of the Country or know it's just in the best interest of your lobbyist, how serious are you?
If Howard had a mandate for the GST, Rudd had one for an ETS, you cannot have your cake & eat it.
So I stand by my 1st post on the subject.


Quote:

So NO, in fact I reckon Labor should adopt Tony Opposition's line. Oppose EVERYTHING, TRASH EVERYTHING, BUGGER EVERYTHING & EVERYONE, SOOK until Government is achieved.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

you can hardly modify your behaviour if you aren't informed of an infraction either bfore the ban or after.

I have no intention of modifying my behaviour at the present moment, I may consider it in the future when & if a decent moderator steps forward for Pol Sux, but until that time my total displeasure & despair at the current state of politics in this country is there for all to see.
Besides I like stirring the Pillowbiter ;)

Quote:

So NO, in fact I reckon Labor should adopt Tony Opposition's line. Oppose EVERYTHING, TRASH EVERYTHING, BUGGER EVERYTHING & EVERYONE, SOOK until Government is achieved.

I have never understood why the Liberals always spit the dummy and take this position in opposition and that Labor respond by acting as a responsible opposition trying to make balanced decisions and support the best things for the country.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 11:04am: dsmithy... dont you think your definition of a mandate is perhaps a little over-the-top NO longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 11:04am: Would you like to proscribe a circumstance that is your MINIMUM requirement for a mandate? 75% of lower house seats or control of both houses longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 11:04am: political terms is a vote from the people that clearly identifies that they or a specific policy has voter approval and should therefore be passed without opposition. Pretty sure the above covers that. You can't achieve my criteria you have no mandate & therefore must use your negotiation skills to pass your bill. If its knocked back repeatedly go to a DD, do you believe its in the best interest of the Country or know it's just in the best interest of your lobbyist, how serious are you? If Howard had a mandate for the GST, Rudd had one for an ETS, you cannot have your cake & eat it. So I stand by my 1st post on the subject. Quote: So NO, in fact I reckon Labor should adopt Tony Opposition's line. Oppose EVERYTHING, TRASH EVERYTHING, BUGGER EVERYTHING & EVERYONE, SOOK until Government is achieved. longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 11:04am: you can hardly modify your behaviour if you aren't informed of an infraction either bfore the ban or after. I have no intention of modifying my behaviour at the present moment, I may consider it in the future when & if a decent moderator steps forward for Pol Sux, but until that time my total displeasure & despair at the current state of politics in this country is there for all to see. Besides I like stirring the Pillowbiter ;)

in 2004 Howard gained control of both houses. did that therefore give him a mandate for workchoices? because apparently, voters disagree. and if not then presumably you want to add the reasonable rider that it be an election policy.  and if it must be an election policy must it be a major, well debate one or any policy/praise? While howard's 'core/non-core' comments were clumsy, they remain a practical truth of government.

A mandate under your terms is extremely hard to get which certainly makes it a valuable concept but i think it is a bit harsh.

Take the next election. If abbott gets a senate majority (extremely unlikely) you would give him a mandate which is fair enough although with control of both houses it becomes irrelevant. But if as is likely he will still need non-coalition senators to support his repeal of the CT does his mandate evaporate? The current polls and likely election outcome is a massive vote for the coalition in both houses and we already know that the voters hate the CT by a large majority. Doesnt that level of unequivocal support make it a mandate thus morally demanding the senate to pass it?

A mandate by your determination becomes just a word with no real relevance because the party already has total power and control. A mandate should also apply when power isnt absolute.

ironically, Abbott may get 75% of the lower house seats but I still think that is a bit high a standard.