Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?”

And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity.

Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax.

The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time.

Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them
In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time.
2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens.

Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner?

The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point?

I am guessing the latter.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter.

Who is that?

'
Was heading out, saw this and had to log-in to say what a masterful OP

In fact, Labor is so reviled it wouldn't surprise me if it ceased to exist in the not so distant future (and the useless Greens along with it)

Aussie wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. Who is that?

the generic 'we'

Yeah......right.

::)

longweekend58

Yes there is bucket loads of delusion and denial going on.

On national polling the result is spot on, what the polling agencies need to revisit is the quality of marginal polling which got the swing direction right but not the scale which it over estimated and under estimated.

I am not sure how the greens can get excited holding on to one seat but losing 30% of their primary vote and the ALP were polling about 34% before the election so given they were still talking their chances up ...... to now claim that was a good result ???? that is BS

Unless the ALP internal polling showed a bigger defeat (which I doubt) the ALP got what was expected but not where it was expected.

The Greens lost 20% of its votes and Milne reckon it was a great result

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter.

2007 was fought on workchoices. THis election was the result of leadership bullcrap in the Labor party. There is no need for them to side with imbecile Tony to repeal anythig; especially when that anything is working and the alternative is to put on weeding gloves and go out into the forest at the cost of $3.2 billion dollars.

ANd a 3.5% swing is not exactly devastating. It will hurt them. It will probably give them 2 terms in opposition. But it isn't as devastating as what was imagined by the bobheads at News Corp.  Libs managed to get back from a 5.3% swing in 2007. And Tony, after 5 years, shows he will be nothing more than the same lacklustre PM as Rudd Was. He isn't a reformer. He isn't anything other than a fluff master. "We are open for business." Spread those legs wide open Tony.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

The Greens lost 20% of its votes and Milne reckon it was a great result

she is an out and out nutter.  labor loss less of their vote than the Greens and they aren't calling it a 'great result'

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

ANd a 3.5% swing is not exactly devastating.

But the lowest primary vote in 100 years is devastating

In 2007 - Rudd won 83 seats

In 2013 - he's won 55 seats

For those who looked at this as a 3.5% swing against Rudd better check history

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:37pm: ANd a 3.5% swing is not exactly devastating. But the lowest primary vote in 100 years is devastating

and the denial continues.  The spirit of Whitlam continues to keep them believing in falsehoods.

worst result in a CENTURY and yet they continue to deny it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. 2007 was fought on workchoices. THis election was the result of leadership bullcrap in the Labor party. There is no need for them to side with imbecile Tony to repeal anythig; especially when that anything is working and the alternative is to put on weeding gloves and go out into the forest at the cost of $3.2 billion dollars. ANd a 3.5% swing is not exactly devastating. It will hurt them. It will probably give them 2 terms in opposition. But it isn't as devastating as what was imagined by the bobheads at News Corp.  Libs managed to get back from a 5.3% swing in 2007. And Tony, after 5 years, shows he will be nothing more than the same lacklustre PM as Rudd Was. He isn't a reformer. He isn't anything other than a fluff master. "We are open for business." Spread those legs wide open Tony.

And THAT attitude is what will ensure a heavy defeat ion 2016.  and the carbon tax is gone in no more than 9 months anyhow. The greens lose the balance of power.  all very very good outcomes.

On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried

Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax

My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax

Buried and cremated?  How can something be buried and cremated?  Seems like a bit of waste to me.  Explains tony to a tea.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time.

Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. 2007 was fought on workchoices. THis election was the result of leadership bullcrap in the Labor party. There is no need for them to side with imbecile Tony to repeal anythig; especially when that anything is working and the alternative is to put on weeding gloves and go out into the forest at the cost of $3.2 billion dollars. ANd a 3.5% swing is not exactly devastating. It will hurt them. It will probably give them 2 terms in opposition. But it isn't as devastating as what was imagined by the bobheads at News Corp.  Libs managed to get back from a 5.3% swing in 2007. And Tony, after 5 years, shows he will be nothing more than the same lacklustre PM as Rudd Was. He isn't a reformer. He isn't anything other than a fluff master. "We are open for business." Spread those legs wide open Tony. And THAT attitude is what will ensure a heavy defeat ion 2016.  and the carbon tax is gone in no more than 9 months anyhow. The greens lose the balance of power.  all very very good outcomes.

9 months?  Tony said 3.  Not 9. 

And it depends.  Good luck to tony arguing with xenophone and 4 nutjobs to try and get his direct action through.  Will he bend over?  Didn't seem to work for him in 2010 ;D

And what attitude?  I'm pointing out that the defeat was NOT as devastating as what was predicted.  Will labor rebound?  Of course.  Our democracy demands it.  Can they reclaim power within 6 years?  If they remove their stupid preselection methods and ensure Rudd is not still intending on one day getting the top job back then yes, they can.  The party can be placed into good hands.  And with the likes of tony, Robb and hockey the task really won't be that hard.

Aussie wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS.

mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers???

but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow. 

I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:50pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:37pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1378620869/0#0 date=1378620869]Well The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. 2007 was fought on workchoices. THis election was the result of leadership bullcrap in the Labor party. There is no need for them to side with imbecile Tony to repeal anythig; especially when that anything is working and the alternative is to put on weeding gloves and go out into the forest at the cost of $3.2 billion dollars. ANd a 3.5% swing is not exactly devastating. It will hurt them. It will probably give them 2 terms in opposition. But it isn't as devastating as what was imagined by the bobheads at News Corp.  Libs managed to get back from a 5.3% swing in 2007. And Tony, after 5 years, shows he will be nothing more than the same lacklustre PM as Rudd Was. He isn't a reformer. He isn't anything other than a fluff master. "We are open for business." Spread those legs wide open Tony. And THAT attitude is what will ensure a heavy defeat ion 2016.  and the carbon tax is gone in no more than 9 months anyhow. The greens lose the balance of power.  all very very good outcomes.

9 months?  Tony said 3.  Not 9. 

And it depends.  Good luck to tony arguing with xenophone and 4 nutjobs to try and get his direct action through.  Will he bend over?  Didn't seem to work for him in 2010 ;D

And what attitude?  I'm pointing out that the defeat was NOT as devastating as what was predicted.  Will labor rebound?  Of course.  Our democracy demands it.  Can they reclaim power within 6 years?  If they remove their stupid preselection methods and ensure Rudd is not still intending on one day getting the top job back then yes, they can.  The party can be placed into good hands.  And with the likes of tony, Robb and hockey the task re




it will be 3 months if labor acts honourably and sensibly.  but if they decide to obstruct then it will take 9 months and the new senate.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections?

In the senate the greens picked up a seat. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.

picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections?

The Greens and the ALP (and the Independants and PUP*) will vote (in The Senate)  according to the Policy they took to the election.  To do anything else would be a betrayal of those who voted for them.

*PUP's Policy is to abolish it.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:46pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.  picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number.

You are picking up the sa result from where?  As it stands it looks like she will retain her seat.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.  picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number. You are picking up the sa result from where?  As it stands it looks like she will retain her seat.

Mr Xs sidekick has 0.8 of a quota while Greens has <.5  preferences are stll to be distributed but the libs preference them ahead of greens as do family first.

time will tell but it still looks like the greens will lose as a consequence of a mere 7% primary vote.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.  picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number. You are picking up the sa result from where?  As it stands it looks like she will retain her seat. Mr Xs sidekick has 0.8 of a quota while Greens has <.5  preferences are stll to be distributed but the libs preference them ahead of greens as do family first. time will tell but it still looks like the greens will lose as a consequence of a mere 7% primary vote.

Mr x was on radio blasting the preference system as he felt he wouldn't get his sidekick into the senate as a result.  And he also has 1.8 of the quota. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.  picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number. You are picking up the sa result from where?  As it stands it looks like she will retain her seat. Mr Xs sidekick has 0.8 of a quota while Greens has <.5  preferences are stll to be distributed but the libs preference them ahead of greens as do family first. time will tell but it still looks like the greens will lose as a consequence of a mere 7% primary vote. Mr x was on radio blasting the preference system as he felt he wouldn't get his sidekick into the senate as a result.  And he also has 1.8 of the quota.

well we shall see but you have to admit he has a point if it goes awry.  his partner has 0.8 of a quota.  being defeated by someone with half that is certainly not a democratic notion. The entire senate system has great weaknesses because the people who benefit from its weaknesses will never vote to change it.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter.

what a pile of absolute rubbish ...... you've been smoking something longy?

John Smith wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. what a pile of absolute rubbish ...... you've been smoking something longy?

your pitiful response might have some value if you actually articulated something of substance rather than admitting that the thrust of the argument went over your head - as so much does.

John Smith wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. what a pile of absolute rubbish ...... you've been smoking something longy?

Go easy Mr Smith, he didn't write it.  "We" did.

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.  picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number. You are picking up the sa result from where?  As it stands it looks like she will retain her seat. Mr Xs sidekick has 0.8 of a quota while Greens has <.5  preferences are stll to be distributed but the libs preference them ahead of greens as do family first. time will tell but it still looks like the greens will lose as a consequence of a mere 7% primary vote. Mr x was on radio blasting the preference system as he felt he wouldn't get his sidekick into the senate as a result.  And he also has 1.8 of the quota.  well we shall see but you have to admit he has a point if it goes awry.  his partner has 0.8 of a quota.  being defeated by someone with half that is certainly not a democratic notion. The entire senate system has great weaknesses because the people who benefit from its weaknesses will never vote to change it.

Oh I don't disagree with his point.  I voted below the line in Vic and f**k me!  I had to check 2 times to make sure I didn't number two boxes twice.  Aside from the lunacy of these preference deals, having 97 candidates with 80% having no policies leads to a failed democratic system; how can I make an informed decision on preferences when most of them have no policy???

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:46pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:42pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. mandated by who?  the voters that abandoned both parties in record numbers??? but the point of the thread is that if labor are stupid enough to oppose the CT repeal then they will give Abbott a hefty bit of ammunition to attack them in 2016.  and the CT is toast anyhow.  I predict Labor will choose the path of self-destruction.  after all, they have trod this path for 3 years now so why change when you can lose multiple elections? In the senate the greens picked up a seat.  picked up one in NSW and probably lost one in SA.  so same number. You are picking up the sa result from where?  As it stands it looks like she will retain her seat. Mr Xs sidekick has 0.8 of a quota while Greens has <.5  preferences are stll to be distributed but the libs preference them ahead of greens as do family first. time will tell but it still looks like the greens will lose as a consequence of a mere 7% primary vote. Mr x was on radio blasting the preference system as he felt he wouldn't get his sidekick into the senate as a result.  And he also has 1.8 of the quota.  well we shall see but you have to admit he has a point if it goes awry.  his partner has 0.8 of a quota.  being defeated by someone with half that is certainly not a democratic notion. The entire senate system has great weaknesses because the people who benefit from its weaknesses will never vote to change it. Oh I don't disagree with his point.  I voted below the line in Vic and f**k me!  I had to check 2 times to make sure I didn't number two boxes twice.  Aside from the lunacy of these preference deals, having 97 candidates with 80% having no policies leads to a failed democratic system; how can I make an informed decision on preferences when most of them have no policy???

optional preferential voting for a start.  When Keating called them 'unrepresentative swill' he wasn't wrong.  it frequently enables a senator who gained almost no first preference votes to frustrate the policy of an elected govt.  that is fundamentally wrong.  Perhaps increasing the number of senators to say 124 will dilute the effect some.  what you think?

Boat ppl, carbon tax, debt.


Game set match

woof woof wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Boat ppl, carbon tax, debt. Game set match

debt?  What is tony doing about debt?  Were you asleep during the election?

The song remains the same -

http://i.qkme.me/3q1o46.jpg

Grey wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

The song remains the same - http://i.qkme.me/3q1o46.jpg

nice to see that you clearly didn't understand the OP

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. what a pile of absolute rubbish ...... you've been smoking something longy? your pitiful response might have some value if you actually articulated something of substance rather than admitting that the thrust of the argument went over your head - as so much does.

I'm not sure how much more articulate I can be ... if you struggle to understand 'a pile of rubbish', what chance have you got of understanding anything more in depth?

Aussie wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS.

That is fine, the ALP will be further punished for that, the greens who knows ..... not sure what is rock bottom for them. The ALP will get punished as they pretend to be the all seasons party, the greens vote could go either way.

The ALP needs to change its policies or wait till the electorate changes their mind.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

... it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition ...

Never mind. As a friend was told by his doctor about his kidney stones: this too shall pass. :P

John Smith wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:08pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Well now it is official.  The ALP have been trounced and lost by a probable 40 seat majority and in the process received the lowest primary vote in 100 years.  Its coalition partners - the Greens - also took a hammering in losing 30% of its voter support. But if you listened to Kevin Rudd’s embarrassingly long and rambly, boring concession speech or Christine Milne’s comments today you would never know that both parties had been comprehensively defeated at the hands of an angry electorate.  And in all the interviews with Labor MPs last night the same message was being repeated “Problem? What problem?” And so it appears that the 2016 election is already in the bag for Tony Abbott’s coalition for much of the same reason that Labor’s 1977 Whitlam-led campaign sank without trace. Denial.  Pure, undiluted denial tinged with generous dollops of stupidity. Labor apologists were falling all over themselves to explain that is was the ‘leadership problem’ that caused the defeat. And without even taking a breath of air repeated the mantra that they would never repeal the carbon tax. The current ALP, or what is left of it, remains in a fixed state of denial. The Carbon Tax defined Julia Gillard’s government and ultimately destroyed it just as Workchoices destroyed the Howard government just six years ago. But the Coalition learned from that mistake, voted to repeal it and moved on and are now back in government.  Labor on the other hand remains fixed and determined to hang on to the one policy that has ruined them and will ruin them again in three years time. Debt, deficit and boat people were big issues but the biggest and most potent of them all was the carbon tax.  It might not have featured as large in the campaign as many expected, but it didn’t need to.  This government was dead in the water two years ago and from the moment the tax was made law, Labor was destined for heavy defeat. People had already decided to skewer them In 1977 Labor went to a general election carrying a boat anchor called Gough Whitlam.  Following the rout of 1975 most would have expected a leadership change, but living in the state of denial that they were, the ALP kept Whitlam as leader and were beaten harshly for a second time. 2013 Labor is no different.  They seem determined to retain the carbon tax they promised they wouldn’t bring in and which has now decimated their ranks. It is a suicidal policy as well as an ultimately pointless one.  The Carbon tax is already doomed.  With the new senate ready to take office in just 9 months its first course of action will be to repeal this unloved and unwanted tax.  And that is exactly what will happen.  A bit of horse-trading and negotiations with the PUP, DLP and Xenophon senators will see it removed from the statute books with relative ease over the hysterical cries of the Greens. Now that Rudd has left the leadership (we think), the new Opposition Leader has a chance to make a complete break with the past.  Just as the Coalition voted to repeal Workchoices, it makes good sense for Labor to do the same and to repeal the Carbon Tax.  If they don’t, they will be left holding the incendiary policy of a Carbon Tax to an electorate that has clearly rejected it.  Abbott will be able to go to the next election claiming quite rightly that a vote for Labor is a vote for a return of the Carbon Tax.  Does anyone think that will be a vote winner? The question is still to be decided: has Labor learned its lessons or do they - as in 1977 - need a second flogging to make the point? I am guessing the latter. what a pile of absolute rubbish ...... you've been smoking something longy? your pitiful response might have some value if you actually articulated something of substance rather than admitting that the thrust of the argument went over your head - as so much does. I'm not sure how much more articulate I can be ... if you struggle to understand 'a pile of rubbish', what chance have you got of understanding anything more in depth?

you are unable to articulate your reasoning, mainly because you are unable to form such arguments.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. That is fine, the ALP will be further punished for that, the greens who knows ..... not sure what is rock bottom for them. The ALP will get punished as they pretend to be the all seasons party, the greens vote could go either way. The ALP needs to change its policies or wait till the electorate changes their mind.

well it appears that the ALP/GReens will not have the capacity to block legislation on their own.  the balance of power has shifted.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:16pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 4:59pm: On the first day of Parliament in Feb 2008 - the then LIB leader said Workchoices is deal, cremated, buried Let us see what the next Labor leader say about the carbon tax My guess is that they will just 'flip the bird' to the electorate and plant the seeds of their own destruction in three years time. Dunno why you say that.  In The Senate, the ALP and the Greens were mandated to oppose the destruction of the carbon tax/ETS. That is fine, the ALP will be further punished for that, the greens who knows ..... not sure what is rock bottom for them. The ALP will get punished as they pretend to be the all seasons party, the greens vote could go either way. The ALP needs to change its policies or wait till the electorate changes their mind.

well it appears that the ALP/GReens will not have the capacity to block legislation on their own.  the balance of power has shifted.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

woof woof wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 6:18pm: Boat ppl, carbon tax, debt. Game set match debt?  What is tony doing about debt?  Were you asleep during the election?

LOL


YOU MUST HAVE BEEN ASLEEP WHEN KRUDDS ADS WERE ON YOUR TV....


CUTS CUTS CUTS.. ::) ::) ::) ::)


HILARIOUS..

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO FIND A JOB...... OUCH!

Opposition Leader Abbott was very successful with his strategy of oppose EVERYTHING.

In fact on these very boards typed by your own hand, we were told the Oppositions job is to OPPOSE.

Surely your now not changing that job description to consensus, working to produce the best possible policy?

The billionaires are celebrating

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

Opposition Leader Abbott was very successful with his strategy of oppose EVERYTHING. In fact on these very boards typed by your own hand, we were told the Oppositions job is to OPPOSE. Surely your now not changing that job description to consensus, working to produce the best possible policy?

the only problem with your BS argument is that it was the Greens who opposed everything.  Abbott opposed things he thought were wrong - nothing more.  His level of opposition is in line with Labor during Howards term.  The Greens on the other hand voted no over 90% of the time.  So labor destroyed its credibility and its electability all over a carbon tax to placate the Greens who in return supported next to none of Labors agenda.  What a great deal Labor made!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:40am: Opposition Leader Abbott was very successful with his strategy of oppose EVERYTHING. In fact on these very boards typed by your own hand, we were told the Oppositions job is to OPPOSE. Surely your now not changing that job description to consensus, working to produce the best possible policy? the only problem with your BS argument is that it was the Greens who opposed everything.  Abbott opposed things he thought were wrong - nothing more.  His level of opposition is in line with Labor during Howards term.  The Greens on the other hand voted no over 90% of the time.  So labor destroyed its credibility and its electability all over a carbon tax to placate the Greens who in return supported next to none of Labors agenda.  What a great deal Labor made!!!

And so the re-writing of history begins.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:46am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:40am: Opposition Leader Abbott was very successful with his strategy of oppose EVERYTHING. In fact on these very boards typed by your own hand, we were told the Oppositions job is to OPPOSE. Surely your now not changing that job description to consensus, working to produce the best possible policy? the only problem with your BS argument is that it was the Greens who opposed everything.  Abbott opposed things he thought were wrong - nothing more.  His level of opposition is in line with Labor during Howards term.  The Greens on the other hand voted no over 90% of the time.  So labor destroyed its credibility and its electability all over a carbon tax to placate the Greens who in return supported next to none of Labors agenda.  What a great deal Labor made!!! And so the re-writing of history begins.

the research it yourself and see just how often Abbott voted for govt legislation and how often Greens voted no. You got sucked into the Dr No vortex because you believed Gillard and Rudd whose record for truth is abysmal. The actual truth is that the last senate was no much different than any other. ~85-90% of legislation passed with bipartisan support and the rest being controversial and negotiated.  and it must be rather obvious that if the Greens had sided with Labor - even occasionally - Abbotts ability to block legislation would not have existed.

Think it thru. 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:46am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:40am: Opposition Leader Abbott was very successful with his strategy of oppose EVERYTHING. In fact on these very boards typed by your own hand, we were told the Oppositions job is to OPPOSE. Surely your now not changing that job description to consensus, working to produce the best possible policy? the only problem with your BS argument is that it was the Greens who opposed everything.  Abbott opposed things he thought were wrong - nothing more.  His level of opposition is in line with Labor during Howards term.  The Greens on the other hand voted no over 90% of the time.  So labor destroyed its credibility and its electability all over a carbon tax to placate the Greens who in return supported next to none of Labors agenda.  What a great deal Labor made!!! And so the re-writing of history begins. the research it yourself and see just how often Abbott voted for govt legislation and how often Greens voted no. You got sucked into the Dr No vortex because you believed Gillard and Rudd whose record for truth is abysmal. The actual truth is that the last senate was no much different than any other. ~85-90% of legislation passed with bipartisan support and the rest being controversial and negotiated.  and it must be rather obvious that if the Greens had sided with Labor - even occasionally - Abbotts ability to block legislation would not have existed. Think it thru.

And yet if this were true the Greens would have been irrelevant.

Just as Labor will be if Tony can convince some of the nutters we've elected to support his plan, Tony doesn't need Labor to support his plans for them to pass.

.

Longweekend
Quote:

the only problem with your BS argument is that it was the Greens who opposed everything.  Abbott opposed things he thought were wrong - nothing more.  His level of opposition is in line with Labor during Howards term.  The Greens on the other hand voted no over 90% of the time.  So labor destroyed its credibility and its electability all over a carbon tax to placate the Greens who in return supported next to none of Labors agenda.  What a great deal Labor made!!!

Don't you Labor clowns wish you could put together a post of facts like this ?


Great post  [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]


Time the truth emerged from beneath the truck-loads of Labor manure

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 10:00am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:56am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:46am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:40am: Opposition Leader Abbott was very successful with his strategy of oppose EVERYTHING. In fact on these very boards typed by your own hand, we were told the Oppositions job is to OPPOSE. Surely your now not changing that job description to consensus, working to produce the best possible policy? the only problem with your BS argument is that it was the Greens who opposed everything.  Abbott opposed things he thought were wrong - nothing more.  His level of opposition is in line with Labor during Howards term.  The Greens on the other hand voted no over 90% of the time.  So labor destroyed its credibility and its electability all over a carbon tax to placate the Greens who in return supported next to none of Labors agenda.  What a great deal Labor made!!! And so the re-writing of history begins. the research it yourself and see just how often Abbott voted for govt legislation and how often Greens voted no. You got sucked into the Dr No vortex because you believed Gillard and Rudd whose record for truth is abysmal. The actual truth is that the last senate was no much different than any other. ~85-90% of legislation passed with bipartisan support and the rest being controversial and negotiated.  and it must be rather obvious that if the Greens had sided with Labor - even occasionally - Abbotts ability to block legislation would not have existed. Think it thru.  And yet if this were true the Greens would have been irrelevant. Just as Labor will be if Tony can convince some of the nutters we've elected to support his plan, Tony doesn't need Labor to support his plans for them to pass.

now you are getting it!  the greens pretty much WERE irrelevant.  Towards the end, Gillard went to Abbott FIRST to get her legislation passed as she realised that the Greens would  automatically vote no.  Labor broke the Greens Agreement and NO ONE CARED because nothing changed.

Having a balance of power might sound all wonderful but if all you do is vote no then it is of little power.  the two majors will just work around you which is exactly what they did in the end.

the Greens are irrelevant now and will be even more so in 9 months time when they formally lose the balance of power they so hopelessly used last time.

longweekend58

The reason the greens had a big problem is the ALP broke key agreements and the greens still backed them. A smarter move would be to pull the support and call an election. This might have worked for the greens who stupidly decided to go down with the ALP.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

longweekend58 The reason the greens had a big problem is the ALP broke key agreements and the greens still backed them. A smarter move would be to pull the support and call an election. This might have worked for the greens who stupidly decided to go down with the ALP.

'Stupid' then, seems to characterise the Greens, making it appropriate their stocks went down with voters.  Who wants a 'stupid' party holding balance of power -- or ANY power

PZ547 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:08am: longweekend58 The reason the greens had a big problem is the ALP broke key agreements and the greens still backed them. A smarter move would be to pull the support and call an election. This might have worked for the greens who stupidly decided to go down with the ALP. 'Stupid' then, seems to characterise the Greens, making it appropriate their stocks went down with voters.  Who wants a 'stupid' party holding balance of power -- or ANY power

PZ547

The greens blindly supporting the ALP have proved they are just a sub branch of the ALP.

This has done more damage to the ALP if anything and who were those other independents who defied the will of their electorates ???

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:12am: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:08am: longweekend58 The reason the greens had a big problem is the ALP broke key agreements and the greens still backed them. A smarter move would be to pull the support and call an election. This might have worked for the greens who stupidly decided to go down with the ALP. 'Stupid' then, seems to characterise the Greens, making it appropriate their stocks went down with voters.  Who wants a 'stupid' party holding balance of power -- or ANY power PZ547 The greens blindly supporting the ALP have proved they are just a sub branch of the ALP. This has done more damage to the ALP if anything and who were those other independents who defied the will of their electorates ???

Seriously you make it sound as if this is a revelation of the Greens support for the ALP.

Greens support social & environmental policies, sometimes so does the ALP.

AS far as Conservatives are concerned as long as it's poor people & animals living in sh!t breathing poison then "Who Cares"

Its not like the Greens have a choice.

Having said that (with my Rose tinted glasses firmly on believing the Greens actually believe what they say)
The Greens put the Climate Skeptics party ahead of Xenophon's running mate for preferences.

Need further proof they've "Jumped the Shark"? >:(

dsmithy70

yes it is obvious what the greens stand for, but given how the ALP behaved they let them off the hook.

Did you miss that point ?

I am in fact saying the Greens should have stood up more for what they believe in but like the true spineless jelly fish I think they are, they went down with the ALP.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:34am:

dsmithy70 yes it is obvious what the greens stand for, but given how the ALP behaved they let them of the hook. Did you miss that point ? I am in fact saying the Greens should have stood up more for what they believe in but like the true spineless jelly fish I think they are, they went down with the ALP.

No its not anymore, hang on yes it is, the same thing Lab/Lib

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:15am: PZ547 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:12am: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:08am: longweekend58 The reason the greens had a big problem is the ALP broke key agreements and the greens still backed them. A smarter move would be to pull the support and call an election. This might have worked for the greens who stupidly decided to go down with the ALP. 'Stupid' then, seems to characterise the Greens, making it appropriate their stocks went down with voters.  Who wants a 'stupid' party holding balance of power -- or ANY power PZ547 The greens blindly supporting the ALP have proved they are just a sub branch of the ALP. This has done more damage to the ALP if anything and who were those other independents who defied the will of their electorates ??? Seriously you make it sound as if this is a revelation of the Greens support for the ALP. Greens support social & environmental policies, sometimes so does the ALP. AS far as Conservatives are concerned as long as it's poor people & animals living in sh!t breathing poison then "Who Cares" Its not like the Greens have a choice. Having said that (with my Rose tinted glasses firmly on believing the Greens actually believe what they say) The Greens put the Climate Skeptics party ahead of Xenophon's running mate for preferences. Need further proof they've "Jumped the Shark"? >:(

that's nonsense and you know it.  it discredits you to come up with that kind of ideologically-inspired drivel.  I look forward to you returning to being a commentator with nous. For now you are scarcely about the Pansi level.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

that's nonsense and you know it.  it discredits you to come up with that kind of ideologically-inspired drivel.  I look forward to you returning to being a commentator with nous. For now you are scarcely about the Pansi level.

Really?

Apologising to Indo for taking a stand against this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuFsxaILgQ

Logging & revoking World Heritage here:

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/09/06/1226713/561351-130907-vicabayleyjuliancooke.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/fears-policy-will-destroy-japanese-markets/story-fn59niix-1226713587939


Quote:

The CFMEU construction union, as well as key industry players including veneer-maker Ta Ann, yesterday warned the sector could not survive a return to conflict provoked by rescinding the World Heritage listing. They united with green groups to plead for the Coalition to reconsider its policy, warning it was "wrong-headed", with key markets demanding top-flight environmental certification offered under the peace deal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3962644-3x2-940x627.jpg

That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me

No not at all, I suspect if we really nutted it down we'd be on the same page.

However where we differ is the idea that "carte blanch" exists when an election is won.

We've discussed mandates before & Abbott did not achieved one.

Tasmania will earn more by keeping those forests thru tourism, granted over a longer period but it will be on going rather than a 1 off, kinda like the sale of government utilities.
People won't spend the money to see 20 year old trees, however 200+ year old is a different story

Animals die to feed us I have no problem with that, but they should die humanly not like being eaten alive by a predator, we say we are above animals, but from Abbotts POV money trumps ethics.

Do you really think we should go down that path?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 3:27pm: That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me No not at all, I suspect if we really nutted it down we'd be on the same page. However where we differ is the idea that "carte blanch" exists when an election is won. We've discussed mandates before & Abbott did not achieved one. Tasmania will earn more by keeping those forests thru tourism, granted over a longer period but it will be on going rather than a 1 off, kinda like the sale of government utilities. People won't spend the money to see 20 year old trees, however 200+ year old is a different story Animals die to feed us I have no problem with that, but they should die humanly not like being eaten alive by a predator, we say we are above animals, but from Abbotts POV money trumps ethics. Do you really think we should go down that path?

but you think Labor has one for the carbon tax???  a party that has LOST the past two elections and promised not to bring one in??

It would appear that you either don't really believe in mandates or you believe in them only in circumstances so rare and so extreme as to be unlikely to ever happen.  It sounds like an excuse.

if labor want to retain the carbon tax then they will both fail with the new senate and also pre-lose the 2016 election where the Libs can rightly claim the ALP will re-introduce the CT.  bad politics and worse ethics.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 3:27pm: That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me No not at all, I suspect if we really nutted it down we'd be on the same page. However where we differ is the idea that "carte blanch" exists when an election is won. We've discussed mandates before & Abbott did not achieved one. Tasmania will earn more by keeping those forests thru tourism, granted over a longer period but it will be on going rather than a 1 off, kinda like the sale of government utilities. People won't spend the money to see 20 year old trees, however 200+ year old is a different story Animals die to feed us I have no problem with that, but they should die humanly not like being eaten alive by a predator, we say we are above animals, but from Abbotts POV money trumps ethics. Do you really think we should go down that path? but you think Labor has one for the carbon tax???  a party that has LOST the past two elections and promised not to bring one in?? It would appear that you either don't really believe in mandates or you believe in them only in circumstances so rare and so extreme as to be unlikely to ever happen.  It sounds like an excuse. if labor want to retain the carbon tax then they will both fail with the new senate and also pre-lose the 2016 election where the Libs can rightly claim the ALP will re-introduce the CT.  bad politics and worse ethics.

No not at all, using your model of a mandate they had one in 07 for the ETS and the libs bloked it.
Gillards CT was circumstances of forming a minority government, again you think we should have gone to the polls again or the indies shouldn't have been true to their name and supported Tony.

As for my beliefs, I happen to believe science rather than the vested interests of petro-chemical industries so yes I support action, and if that action cost me a few $$ then so be it.
Every generation has sacrifed either thru war or money to make it better for the next, I don't know why that changed, but its not for the better. :(

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 3:27pm: That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me No not at all, I suspect if we really nutted it down we'd be on the same page. However where we differ is the idea that "carte blanch" exists when an election is won. We've discussed mandates before & Abbott did not achieved one. Tasmania will earn more by keeping those forests thru tourism, granted over a longer period but it will be on going rather than a 1 off, kinda like the sale of government utilities. People won't spend the money to see 20 year old trees, however 200+ year old is a different story Animals die to feed us I have no problem with that, but they should die humanly not like being eaten alive by a predator, we say we are above animals, but from Abbotts POV money trumps ethics. Do you really think we should go down that path? but you think Labor has one for the carbon tax???  a party that has LOST the past two elections and promised not to bring one in?? It would appear that you either don't really believe in mandates or you believe in them only in circumstances so rare and so extreme as to be unlikely to ever happen.  It sounds like an excuse. if labor want to retain the carbon tax then they will both fail with the new senate and also pre-lose the 2016 election where the Libs can rightly claim the ALP will re-introduce the CT.  bad politics and worse ethics. No not at all, using your model of a mandate they had one in 07 for the ETS and the libs bloked it. Gillards CT was circumstances of forming a minority government, again you think we should have gone to the polls again or the indies shouldn't have been true to their name and supported Tony. As for my beliefs, I happen to believe science rather than the vested interests of petro-chemical industries so yes I support action, and if that action cost me a few $$ then so be it. Every generation has sacrifed either thru war or money to make it better for the next, I don't know why that changed, but its not for the better. :(

While I on the other hand believe passionately in democracy and the right of the majority to decide our laws.  And if that means a majority genuinely supporting gay marriage then so be it.  But the same has to apply to EVERYTHING.

I asked this question once before and not one single solitary person was willing (or able ) to answer.

If  plebiscite was asked of all voters if they supported the Carbon tax and if they supported Gay marriage would you agree that the govt was bound to follow both decisions?

note the word BOTH.  most posters from either side declined to answer because they don't really believe in the rule of the majority.

What would you say?

Well lets define "majority"
lets go with 200 total
101 v 99 or 175 v 25

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25

and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99.

why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:32pm: Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25 and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99. why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description.

OK now we've worked that out, and it was a question just to understand your POV then Yes the 101 get their way.
However this must be stated clearly and BOTH sides must agree not to come back and challenge the outcome.

BTW whilst polls say people didnt want the CT, they also say action is wanted but it just must not cost anything, back to my point of the selfish nature of our current society.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:32pm: Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25 and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99. why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description. OK now we've worked that out, and it was a question just to understand your POV then Yes the 101 get their way. However this must be stated clearly and BOTH sides must agree not to come back and challenge the outcome. BTW whilst polls say people didnt want the CT, they also say action is wanted but it just must not cost anything, back to my point of the selfish nature of our current society.

none of which extinguishes the democratic right to majority rule.  And such polls are a bit like the PPM polls - pretty meaningless. it is ALWAYS easy to support a notion that costs you nothing. The opinions that are given are lightweight and rarely well-considered.  In fact it is well known that opinions that come with a cost or advantage are the ones that are more likely to be genuine.

BTW I love your bit about not coming back to challenge the outcome.  do you think for one minute that if gay marriage was rejected that they wouldn't be back the next day agitating and challenging?

Unfortunately, Australia doesn't have any binding plebiscite constitutional mechanics and I wish we did.  I doubt it would be used much but it could be a good circuit break.  I think the above two questions would be ideal test cases.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

BTW I love your bit about not coming back to challenge the outcome.  do you think for one minute that if gay marriage was rejected that they wouldn't be back the next day agitating and challenging?

Hence my no challenge caveat, Gay marriage is the perfect example as you assert, & frankly their stand is more about screwing the church than anything else.
If they were told they could be married and call it such just not in a church that exercises their beliefs its wrong the discrimination court would be overloaded.
Their a pain in the arse in more ways than 1 ;)


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

In fact it is well known that opinions that come with a cost or advantage are the ones that are more likely to be genuine.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

Unfortunately, Australia doesn't have any binding plebiscite constitutional mechanics and I wish we did.  I doubt it would be used much but it could be a good circuit break.  I think the above two questions would be ideal test cases.

Like I said, nut it down we agree on more things than not.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:49pm: BTW I love your bit about not coming back to challenge the outcome.  do you think for one minute that if gay marriage was rejected that they wouldn't be back the next day agitating and challenging? Hence my no challenge caveat, Gay marriage is the perfect example as you assert, & frankly their stand is more about screwing the church than anything else. If they were told they could be married and call it such just not in a church that exercises their beliefs its wrong the discrimination court would be overloaded. Their a pain in the arse in more ways than 1 ;) longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:49pm: In fact it is well known that opinions that come with a cost or advantage are the ones that are more likely to be genuine. longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Unfortunately, Australia doesn't have any binding plebiscite constitutional mechanics and I wish we did.  I doubt it would be used much but it could be a good circuit break.  I think the above two questions would be ideal test cases. Like I said, nut it down we agree on more things than not.

gotta agree there...

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me

Yet you supported ABBOTT BLOCKING LABOR MANDATES FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS.
Suck it up, only about three hundred thousand more people votes coalition, that means many millions preferenced Labor over the Coaltion and those people want Labor to stick to their guns.
Phoney tony the women basher said oppositions should oppose, Labor should take his advice.

skippy. wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 3:27pm: That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me Yet you supported ABBOTT BLOCKING LABOR MANDATES FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS. Suck it up, only about three hundred thousand more people votes coalition, that means many millions preferenced Labor over the Coaltion and those people want Labor to stick to their guns. Phoney tony the women basher said oppositions should oppose, Labor should take his advice.

what mandates nutjob???  Gillard had no mandate for anything and Rudds sole mandate was for the repeal of workchoices.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

skippy. wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 8:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 3:27pm: That whole democratic principle of rule by the majority obviously means something different to you than me Yet you supported ABBOTT BLOCKING LABOR MANDATES FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS. Suck it up, only about three hundred thousand more people votes coalition, that means many millions preferenced Labor over the Coaltion and those people want Labor to stick to their guns. Phoney tony the women basher said oppositions should oppose, Labor should take his advice. what mandates nutjob???  Gillard had no mandate for anything and Rudds sole mandate was for the repeal of workchoices.

Going by Abbott's definitions, the mandate is the entire agenda. Rudd had on his agenda the ETS. Tony denied the people of Australia what we mandated for. What a prick. How dare he.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:32pm: Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25 and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99. why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description.

Probably the same way you support the 101 getting all, and the 99 nothing.

Kat wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:32pm: Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25 and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99. why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description. Probably the same way you support the 101 getting all, and the 99 nothing.

or how you would disenfranchise the 101 to support the 99.  or In your case more likely ther 175 to support the 25.

Just as I though.  You Kat don't even give lip service to majority rule.

How can reason with a mentality in denial, the labor party are so proud, arogant and self righteous that they will lie and deny

Apparently Tony Abbott in 2010 wrote an essay about the 'mandate of opposition', in which he pointed out that the opposition had a mandate to the people that gave their votes to them, and not to support the government of the day  ... something which I suspect may come back to bite Abbott...

I've had a quick look for it, but haven't found it yet, and it's getting a bit late for me  ...  I'll look again tomorrow


Has anyone seen this essay?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Kat wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 10:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:32pm: Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25 and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99. why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description. Probably the same way you support the 101 getting all, and the 99 nothing. or how you would disenfranchise the 101 to support the 99.  or In your case more likely ther 175 to support the 25. Just as I though.  You Kat don't even give lip service to majority rule.

if the libs have the majority, then they rule .... but that means they need to convince the majority in the senate too ....  ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Apparently Tony Abbott in 2010 wrote an essay about the 'mandate of opposition', in which he pointed out that the opposition had a mandate to the people that gave their votes to them, and not to support the government of the day  ... something which I suspect may come back to bite Abbott... I've had a quick look for it, but haven't found it yet, and it's getting a bit late for me  ...  I'll look again tomorrow Has anyone seen this essay?

well back in 2010 the total electoral vote was nearly 50/50, between the major parties i wouldnt call that a mandate for a long shot, thats not soooo the case today, the coalition clearly has a mandate, so if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor.

stryder wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Apparently Tony Abbott in 2010 wrote an essay about the 'mandate of opposition', in which he pointed out that the opposition had a mandate to the people that gave their votes to them, and not to support the government of the day  ... something which I suspect may come back to bite Abbott... I've had a quick look for it, but haven't found it yet, and it's getting a bit late for me  ...  I'll look again tomorrow Has anyone seen this essay? well back then the vote was nearly 50/50, thats not soooo the case today, so if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor.

bullsh1t ... numbers change, not rules ... the rule should apply regardless of 50 / 50 or 70 /30 . 

stryder wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor.

how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST?

John Smith wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:52pm:

stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST?

I believe you underestimate the importance of the carbon tax pledge as an issue with the majority just like the left underestimates everything else.

stryder wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:52pm: stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST? I believe underestimate the importance of the carbon tax pledge as an issue with the majority just like the left underestimates everything else.

you believe whatever you like .... if the only issue was the carbon tax the libs would never have won office .... the fact is labor lost for many reasons. ..most people don't care about the carbon tax despite what Abbott tells you ... but you believe what you want.

I think we are getting caught in definitions.
In a democracy the majority rule but not by decree, unless of course they gain both houses.
Howard had a majority but not a mandate in 04 because WC was not taken to the people but a result of the majority vote.
As I've said before I consider a mandate 75% of the vote and I would use this figure to the plebisites Longy proposes as well.
If as longy proposes we go with the majority i.e greater than 50% even by .01% you cannot deny Rudd had the right to entact an ETS and Tony as Turnbull did, should have tried to amend but ultimately passed the ETS.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Either Tony has a mandate/majority and so did Rudd therefore Tony denied the will of the majority of the electorate or neither has and therefore the opposition can do as they please, as Tony did.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Kat wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 10:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 7:32pm: Well lets define "majority" lets go with 200 total 101 v 99 or 175 v 25 and the excuses begin.  while a 101/99 majority is obviously slim how do you support denying the 101 to support the 99. why is it SO FRIGGING HARD for you lefties to even contemplate the notion of rule by majority?  You are often accused of being totalitarians dressed up as democrats and at the moment you aren't challenging that description. Probably the same way you support the 101 getting all, and the 99 nothing. or how you would disenfranchise the 101 to support the 99.  or In your case more likely ther 175 to support the 25. Just as I though.  You Kat don't even give lip service to majority rule.

Nice twist to my words.

And totally off the mark, as usual.

John Smith wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:52pm:

stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST?

you seem to forget that people don't mind the GST and never did.  They hate the carbon tax however and always have.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:02am:

I think we are getting caught in definitions. In a democracy the majority rule but not by decree, unless of course they gain both houses. Howard had a majority but not a mandate in 04 because WC was not taken to the people but a result of the majority vote. As I've said before I consider a mandate 75% of the vote and I would use this figure to the plebisites Longy proposes as well. If as longy proposes we go with the majority i.e greater than 50% even by .01% you cannot deny Rudd had the right to entact an ETS and Tony as Turnbull did, should have tried to amend but ultimately passed the ETS. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either Tony has a mandate/majority and so did Rudd therefore Tony denied the will of the majority of the electorate or neither has and therefore the opposition can do as they please, as Tony did.

mandates are never simply to define.  To say that a govt that wins by a large margin has a mandate for its headline policies is true.  to say that it does so for every policy is not so true for if we believe that then an opposition has no right to oppose any govt policy whatsoever.  But the people do give mandates on the 1 or 2 headline policies.

Australia does need a binding plebiscite system although I doubt how practical it would be.

John Smith wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:

stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:55pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:52pm: stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST? I believe underestimate the importance of the carbon tax pledge as an issue with the majority just like the left underestimates everything else. you believe whatever you like .... if the only issue was the carbon tax the libs would never have won office .... the fact is labor lost for many reasons. ..most people don't care about the carbon tax despite what Abbott tells you ... but you believe what you want.

In the exit polls the two most popular reasons given by voters who declared they had not voted Labor was

1. Leadership
2. Cost of living

You could argue the carbon tax is part of 2 but that had its own category.

Interesting carbon tax and boats came quite far down the list - showing that Rudd either successfully negated that with his policies or people just didn't care in the first place.

Anyway, it is pretty obvious.

Labor was dis-united, it was riven with internal differences and a party is clearly never going to win when its as clear as day to all and sundry.

Where was Crean? Roxon? Emerson? Swan?

Just because they were silent doesn't mean people thought they were united. It was never going to work. You don't change leaders twice and think people might be ok with it.

Kinda long-winded way for me of saying - no I don't think it was a mandate or referendum on the carbon tax.
It was a rejection of a disunited, clearly dysfunctional Government come the end and people were sick of it.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:52pm: stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST? you seem to forget that people don't mind the GST and never did.  They hate the carbon tax however and always have.

No they were scared by Tony's bullsh!t & reacted

Then the tax came in & they've gone WTF was all that about?????

Labor lost not because of the Carbon tax but because of KRudd & his band of traitors.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:52pm: stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST? you seem to forget that people don't mind the GST and never did. They hate the carbon tax however and always have.

what a load of bullshit ..... people were against the GST from day dot . Over 50% of voters voted against it, it was still an issue at the following election which was why Howard tried to avoid mentioning it. Howard was set to lose the following election until Tampa and the children overboard saw the vote split.

You keep burying your head in the sand if you like. The only mandate Abbott has is when he takes pyne out to dinner ... everything else he can shove up his ar$e.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 10:36am: John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:52pm: stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST? you seem to forget that people don't mind the GST and never did. They hate the carbon tax however and always have. what a load of bullshit ..... people were against the GST from day dot . Over 50% of voters voted against it, it was still an issue at the following election which was why Howard tried to avoid mentioning it. Howard was set to lose the following election until Tampa and the children overboard saw the vote split. You keep burying your head in the sand if you like. The only mandate Abbott has is when he takes pyne out to dinner ... everything else he can shove up his ar$e.

and that idiotic response is why nobody takes your responses seriously.

I agree with John actually.

This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax.

It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out.

as a non-resident aussie-by-name-only, what would you know? You don't live here and your interest in the place is professional at best.  The carbon tax destroyed Gillards leadership and finally the govt as well.  yes there were other things - a host of other things, but it was also a comprehensive rejection of the carbon tax

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out.

Andrei.Hicks

I don't think you can separate the two, it became a cost of living issue so politically the tax needs to go.
The fact the ALP lied about it has also destroyed the idea for many people

The only hope for the tax in my view is if the LNP change their mind, they did have a policy for such in the past, but given Abbott's stance he has to try to remove it, and obviously senate obstruction is the only hope right now.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 11:22am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 10:36am: John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:52pm: stryder wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 11:47pm: if the left through labor wanna continue to p*** the majority of australians by creating obstacles of ridding the carbon tax, go ahead. i expect more of a backlash against labor. how much more backlash do you think they need to fear? they already lost the election because of it (according to Abbott)... do people still vote against the libs because they introduced the GST? you seem to forget that people don't mind the GST and never did. They hate the carbon tax however and always have. what a load of bullshit ..... people were against the GST from day dot . Over 50% of voters voted against it, it was still an issue at the following election which was why Howard tried to avoid mentioning it. Howard was set to lose the following election until Tampa and the children overboard saw the vote split. You keep burying your head in the sand if you like. The only mandate Abbott has is when he takes pyne out to dinner ... everything else he can shove up his ar$e. and that idiotic response is why nobody takes your responses seriously.

everyone who has been on this forum for longer than 5 minutes knows that unless they agree with you, you consider all responses as idiotic ... that is why no one, other than you, takes YOUR responses seriously.  :D :D :D

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:28pm: I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out. Andrei.Hicks I don't think you can separate the two, it became a cost of living issue so politically the tax needs to go. The fact the ALP lied about it has also destroyed the idea for many people The only hope for the tax in my view is if the LNP change their mind, they did have a policy for such in the past, but given Abbott's stance he has to try to remove it, and obviously senate obstruction is the only hope right now.

if you can't separate them how can you claim they were voted out because of the carbon tax ?

A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever

good, then ask Abbott to hold one before he takes any action.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

as a non-resident aussie-by-name-only, what would you know? You don't live here and your interest in the place is professional at best.

Plays no role in my ability to understand and appreciate an issue though.

The carbon tax was not a major factor in the way the majority voted this time - hence why I refuse to see how it was rejected.

Many people would have not voted Labor or Greens and still believed in a different policy - Malcolm Turnbull is not a bad example on that one.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:37pm: as a non-resident aussie-by-name-only, what would you know? You don't live here and your interest in the place is professional at best.  Plays no role in my ability to understand and appreciate an issue though. The carbon tax was not a major factor in the way the majority voted this time - hence why I refuse to see how it was rejected. Many people would have not voted Labor or Greens and still believed in a different policy - Malcolm Turnbull is not a bad example on that one.

I thought you were due in Paris on Sunday night ?

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever

If you hold a referendum for every piece of legislation, we'd be off to the polls every month.

Referenda occur seldom and with a very significant change in policy or the way you are governed.

Australia on the monarchy and in Britain we had it all proportional voting.

Carbon tax?? Nonsense. It doesnt need one.

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:37pm: as a non-resident aussie-by-name-only, what would you know? You don't live here and your interest in the place is professional at best.  Plays no role in my ability to understand and appreciate an issue though. The carbon tax was not a major factor in the way the majority voted this time - hence why I refuse to see how it was rejected. Many people would have not voted Labor or Greens and still believed in a different policy - Malcolm Turnbull is not a bad example on that one. I thought you were due in Paris on Sunday night ?

First I have heard of it.

Yep

and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis

Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card

Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine

Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card

Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote

One vote per card per person


Bring it

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:46pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:28pm: I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out. Andrei.Hicks I don't think you can separate the two, it became a cost of living issue so politically the tax needs to go. The fact the ALP lied about it has also destroyed the idea for many people The only hope for the tax in my view is if the LNP change their mind, they did have a policy for such in the past, but given Abbott's stance he has to try to remove it, and obviously senate obstruction is the only hope right now. if you can't separate them how can you claim they were voted out because of the carbon tax ?

John Smith

So when did you make such a statement ? You should run off and correct yourself.

The CT and the handling of such both did damage if you want to go down that dumb path.

It was a double whamy, Rudd was right at the time the public mood had shifted on such when he did not implementit.

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Yep and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote One vote per card per person Bring it

Do you think we should have little lunch as well?

Really, with such a system would our economy be globalized?

And if our economy was not Globalized would we have been able to take advantage of China's boom?

Where would our economy be now with massive tariffs on imported goods & retaliatory tariffs on our exports?

You wouldn't be watching a flat screen TV unless your name was Packer, that's for sure.

People are inherently selfish, not so long ago Governments made decisions that had short term pain for long term gain, usually within the 1st year of election so the plebs would have forgotten by the next election.

We need if anything to reinstate 4 year terms.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:27pm: Yep and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote One vote per card per person Bring it Do you think we should have little lunch as well? Really, with such a system would our economy be globalized? And if our economy was not Globalized would we have been able to take advantage of China's boom? Where would our economy be now with massive tariffs on imported goods & retaliatory tariffs on our exports? You wouldn't be watching a flat screen TV unless your name was Packer, that's for sure. People are inherently selfish, not so long ago Governments made decisions that had short term pain for long term gain, usually within the 1st year of election so the plebs would have forgotten by the next election. We need if anything to reinstate 4 year terms.

First off (and as you might have realised once you reread you own post) my suggestion is the polar opposite of the nanny-state

It would also render government superfluous to large extent.  Administrators would replace them at a hundredth the cost and pain

I DO want a return to tariffs on all imported products

I want a return to self-sufficiency

A return to Aussie made - Aussie manufacturing and resultant increase in employment

I don't give a rat's about flat screens.  You might.  I don't.  And Aussies would shed a lot of flab for which flat screens are responsible

As for China --- this country's been living on people's enforced superannuation for who knows how long and China needs us a DAMN sight more than we need it

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Yep and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote One vote per card per person Bring it

sounds like it could be a very profitable commodity ... I wonder what the libs would pay for my card!!!!!

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:27pm: Yep and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote One vote per card per person Bring it sounds like it could be a very profitable commodity ... I wonder what the libs would pay for my card!!!!!

YOU would pay a heavy fine were it to be misused, sold, defaced or lost


but how typical of you to immediately try to find a way to corrupt a system, ANY system

no wonder you support Labor

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:14pm: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:46pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:28pm: I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out. Andrei.Hicks I don't think you can separate the two, it became a cost of living issue so politically the tax needs to go. The fact the ALP lied about it has also destroyed the idea for many people The only hope for the tax in my view is if the LNP change their mind, they did have a policy for such in the past, but given Abbott's stance he has to try to remove it, and obviously senate obstruction is the only hope right now. if you can't separate them how can you claim they were voted out because of the carbon tax ? John Smith So when did you make such a statement ? You should run off and correct yourself. The CT and the handling of such both did damage if you want to go down that dumb path. It was a double whamy, Rudd was right at the time the public mood had shifted on such when he did not implementit.

you haven't even read the OP have you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 2:02pm: PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:27pm: Yep and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote One vote per card per person Bring it sounds like it could be a very profitable commodity ... I wonder what the libs would pay for my card!!!!! YOU would pay a heavy fine were it to be misused, sold, defaced or lost but how typical of you to immediately try to find a way to corrupt a system, ANY system no wonder you support Labor

'
that took 20 seconds  ... you find a solution and someone will find a way around it. If you fine me I'll just have to make sure I sell it for more than the value of the fine ... what are you going to do come and check my wallet every week  to see if I still have my card?

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:36pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:14pm: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:46pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:28pm: I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out. Andrei.Hicks I don't think you can separate the two, it became a cost of living issue so politically the tax needs to go. The fact the ALP lied about it has also destroyed the idea for many people The only hope for the tax in my view is if the LNP change their mind, they did have a policy for such in the past, but given Abbott's stance he has to try to remove it, and obviously senate obstruction is the only hope right now. if you can't separate them how can you claim they were voted out because of the carbon tax ? John Smith So when did you make such a statement ? You should run off and correct yourself. The CT and the handling of such both did damage if you want to go down that dumb path. It was a double whamy, Rudd was right at the time the public mood had shifted on such when he did not implementit. you haven't even read the OP have you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You're the one quoting me

and responding to me   


What does that make you   ;D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:37pm: as a non-resident aussie-by-name-only, what would you know? You don't live here and your interest in the place is professional at best.  Plays no role in my ability to understand and appreciate an issue though. The carbon tax was not a major factor in the way the majority voted this time - hence why I refuse to see how it was rejected. Many people would have not voted Labor or Greens and still believed in a different policy - Malcolm Turnbull is not a bad example on that one. I thought you were due in Paris on Sunday night ?

It's friday and London.

Are you coming to wish me well?

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 2:03pm: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:36pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:14pm: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:46pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:28pm: I agree with John actually. This wasn't a rejection of the carbon tax. It was a rejection of a Government so divided down the middle, the people got sick of it and turfed them out. Andrei.Hicks I don't think you can separate the two, it became a cost of living issue so politically the tax needs to go. The fact the ALP lied about it has also destroyed the idea for many people The only hope for the tax in my view is if the LNP change their mind, they did have a policy for such in the past, but given Abbott's stance he has to try to remove it, and obviously senate obstruction is the only hope right now. if you can't separate them how can you claim they were voted out because of the carbon tax ? John Smith So when did you make such a statement ? You should run off and correct yourself. The CT and the handling of such both did damage if you want to go down that dumb path. It was a double whamy, Rudd was right at the time the public mood had shifted on such when he did not implementit. you haven't even read the OP have you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You're the one quoting me and responding to me    What does that make you   ;D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

actually dopey, you jumped in on a conversation between longy and myself and Andrei.

Besides, I've read the OP ... I can respond to you because I know what the bugger I'm talking about ...  only an idiot comments without even knowing the subject matter.

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

First off (and as you might have realised once you reread you own post) my suggestion is the polar opposite of the nanny-state It would also render government superfluous to large extent.  Administrators would replace them at a hundredth the cost and pain I DO want a return to tariffs on all imported products I want a return to self-sufficiency A return to Aussie made - Aussie manufacturing and resultant increase in employment I don't give a rat's about flat screens.  You might.  I don't.  And Aussies would shed a lot of flab for which flat screens are responsible As for China --- this country's been living on people's enforced superannuation for who knows how long and China needs us a DAMN sight more than we need it

1) It wasn't a suggestion of nanny state, it was a suggestion of childishness

2) So somehow the Administrators would demand/be happy with less?

Ever heard a saying about power & corruption??

3) I support FAIR trade, what you want is a pipe dream, an artificial Nirvana that has NEVER existed

4) But you'll buy the $3.50 can opener from china instead of the $10.50 Aussie one, or do you expect some of your countrymen to work for $3 a week.
You cannot maintain our current standard of living & have cheap products, whats your choice?

5) It was an example of an everyday item which would be unaffordable in your world

6) You are a fool

A country of 20 million people which is not part of any of the three major trading blocs, imposing import tariffs on products is literally suicide,.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:18pm: A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever good, then ask Abbott to hold one before he takes any action.

why? do you think the Greens or Labor would take the slightest notice of the result?  they have lost an election by a landslide and still refuse to repeal it. 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:37pm: as a non-resident aussie-by-name-only, what would you know? You don't live here and your interest in the place is professional at best.  Plays no role in my ability to understand and appreciate an issue though. The carbon tax was not a major factor in the way the majority voted this time - hence why I refuse to see how it was rejected. Many people would have not voted Labor or Greens and still believed in a different policy - Malcolm Turnbull is not a bad example on that one.

what makes you so sure?  the few days you spent in OZ? it is not only possibly but distinctly probable that residents would know better than blow-ins.  aren't you the self-same person that says everyone else's opinion on USA and UK society and politics is invalid because we don't live there?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:20pm: PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:18pm: A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever good, then ask Abbott to hold one before he takes any action. why? do you think the Greens or Labor would take the slightest notice of the result?  they have lost an election by a landslide and still refuse to repeal it.

of course they will dopey .... have they ever refused to uphold the result of a referendum?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:27pm: Yep and for years, I've been suggesting we DO hold referendums on continuous basis Everyone is provided with a card similar to a credit card Alongside every ATM would be a referendum machine Before government can pass legislation, the matter will be put to the people who will vote using their referendum-card Across the top of referendum machines will be scrolling latest legislation up for vote One vote per card per person Bring it Do you think we should have little lunch as well? Really, with such a system would our economy be globalized? And if our economy was not Globalized would we have been able to take advantage of China's boom? Where would our economy be now with massive tariffs on imported goods & retaliatory tariffs on our exports? You wouldn't be watching a flat screen TV unless your name was Packer, that's for sure. People are inherently selfish, not so long ago Governments made decisions that had short term pain for long term gain, usually within the 1st year of election so the plebs would have forgotten by the next election. We need if anything to reinstate 4 year terms.

agreed other than the pedantic detail that federally we have NEVER had 4 years terms.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

the few days you spent in OZ? it is not only possibly but distinctly probable that residents would know better than blow-ins

it is a sad reflection on you that this blow in has a better grip on the current political climate in Australia than you do .

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 4:44pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:20pm: PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:18pm: A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever good, then ask Abbott to hold one before he takes any action. why? do you think the Greens or Labor would take the slightest notice of the result?  they have lost an election by a landslide and still refuse to repeal it.  of course they will dopey .... have they ever refused to uphold the result of a referendum?

Referenda are ONLY for constitutional changes - not legislative ones.  there is no facility whatsoever to hold a binding plebiscite on legislation.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

agreed other than the pedantic detail that federally we have NEVER had 4 years terms.

Really?
Maybe it just felt that way or those before had more political courage.

But yes whether Labor or Liberal they should be given time to govern & 3 years is not long enough.

With a good enough argument I'd probably even toy with 5

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 4:48pm: agreed other than the pedantic detail that federally we have NEVER had 4 years terms. Really? Maybe it just felt that way or those before had more political courage. But yes whether Labor or Liberal they should be given time to govern & 3 years is not long enough. With a good enough argument I'd probably even toy with 5

if we want 4 or 5 year terms - preferably fixed dates then I would want a recall facility. 5 years is along time with a corrupt or grossly incompetent govt.  The recall facility needs to be diffult to achieve but still possible.

longweekend58

I would prefer 5 year terms and fixed election dates.

I have no idea why we tolerate political gamesmanship with elections.

In our political system there is nothing more important than letting the electorate chose government, especially overseas wankfests.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 4:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 4:44pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:20pm: PZ547 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:18pm: A referendum will kiss carbon tax goodnight forever good, then ask Abbott to hold one before he takes any action. why? do you think the Greens or Labor would take the slightest notice of the result?  they have lost an election by a landslide and still refuse to repeal it.  of course they will dopey .... have they ever refused to uphold the result of a referendum? Referenda are ONLY for constitutional changes - not legislative ones.  there is no facility whatsoever to hold a binding plebiscite on legislation.

fine, you're a genius who knows everything about everything, but you still failed to answer the question  .... again

Have they EVER refused to uphold the result of a referendum?

4yr terms with fixed election dates ... 5yrs might be stretching it to far.

The ALP is continuing to live in a state of denial and it will cost them big time.

The ALP are still failing to come to grips with the reasons for their electoral flogging.

I agree Longy, YOU ARE IN A STATE OF DENIAL!

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

I agree Longy, YOU ARE IN A STATE OF DENIAL!

says the drongo who STILL claims we will run out of oil in...


1985!!!!


it takes a special breed of clown to be that delusional.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 9:38pm: I agree Longy, YOU ARE IN A STATE OF DENIAL! says the drongo who STILL claims we will run out of oil in... 1985!!!! it takes a special breed of clown to be that delusional.

PN doesn't understand between absolute theory and reality

Any finite resource has a theoretical "Peak" point - PN based this theory on oil and mucked around with dates to validate himself

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

The ALP are still failing to come to grips with the reasons for their electoral flogging.

I am loving the ALP's focus on the travel rorts - then Dreyfuss had to pay back some money as well  ;D ;D

The more they focus on these travel issues - the more the LIBs are loving it

These travel issues is not much different than claiming back items on your tax return

Maqqa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

These travel issues is not much different than claiming back items on your tax return

It's actually illegal to make false claims in your tax return.

1,500 prosecutions for tax and superannuation offences this financial year



Tax Office technology catches tax cheats

As usual, both Longy & maqqa are consistent, BUT CONSISTENTLY INCORRECT!!!


perceptions_now wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 11:13pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 3:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 3:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 7:13pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:58pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:55pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 2:48pm: you will also not that Prozac_now never comes up with any solutions - just criticism.  He hates debt and hates spending cuts.  he seems to want it both ways while blaming everyone for everything. clearly his medication is not working, You assume too much, as usual! A solution, for everything, there is NOT! As usual, you statements do not reflect the truth! I have no problem with Debt, Spending Cuts or Economic Stimulation measures, in the appropriate circumstances, of which there have been many, over the years, BUT NONE OF THEM WILL WORK NOW, FOR THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM, as the entire system has been destabilised over the last 40-50 years! so in short, you are saying that you have no answers or solutions.  WHICH WAS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, oh depressed one. As usual, your statement is incorrect! You said that, I never comes up with any solutions. What I  said is that, there is not necessarily a solution for everything & in this instance there is no solution, which would restore the "status quo", in either the short or medium term and certainly not without a great deal of shared pain for all!  Btw, which of the following options, per my following post, do you think primarily fit you OR is it simply all of them? They ("those in the know OR thought they did") thought - 1) Like Longy, it had not happened before, so it never would! 2) "Something", like the cavalry riding to the rescue, would come along to save this from becoming a reality? 3) Then there were those who deliberately turned the other way, preferring short term rewards for themselves and a select few, at great cost to the long term future of the bulk of the Local & Global  Public! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374843119/16#16 you certainly are a weirdo, Prozac_now.  I say you have never provided solutions and your protesting reply includes... NOT ONE SOLUTION.  has it ever occurred to you that you could skewer  my comments by simply providing those self-same solutions? you talk and talk ad nauseum, criticising anyone and everyone for their economic policies and promises and yet not once, do you ever offer an alternative.  That's lame enough on its own but when you say that you HAVE but never post them... you look like a weirdo. Did you ever learn how to read Longy, I said - "What I  said is that, there is not necessarily a solution for everything & in this instance there is no solution, which would restore the "status quo", in either the short or medium term and certainly not without a great deal of shared pain for all!"  Did you ever learn how to read Longy, I said - "What I  said is that, there is not necessarily a solution for everything & in this instance there is no solution, which would restore the "status quo", in either the short or medium term and certainly not without a great deal of shared pain for all!" You really do have some serious lack of capacities, in a number of areas! How's your education going Longy? Have you learned about the 3R's yet? You know - Reading, Riting & Rithmetic? Well, at least, you got a chance with the Riting, after all you are on the Rite side of politics? all you ever is 'gah! we are all going to die' and then say there are no solutions. Of what value do you think you are to anyone?  You are the same bozo saying we would run out of oil in 1985 and even worse... still say so. As usual Longy, YOU ARE INCORRECT! I have never said, we are all going to die, IT IS YOU WHO JUST SAID THAT! Also, I never said, we were going to run out of oil in 1985, BUT yes, we certainly will run out at some stage, AS OIL IS MOST DEINITELY A FINITE RESOURCE, don't you know!  And, as for solutions, apparently you still, continue to fail the 4R's - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension So, I say again - "What I  said is that, there is not necessarily a solution for everything & in this instance there is no solution, which would restore the "status quo", in either the short or medium term and certainly not without a great deal of shared pain for all!"

True Colours wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 11:37pm:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 11:17pm: These travel issues is not much different than claiming back items on your tax return It's actually illegal to make false claims in your tax return. 1,500 prosecutions for tax and superannuation offences this financial year Tax Office technology catches tax cheats

a whole 1500???? that's all??

perhaps you missed the point that there is a difference with making an error in a tax return and FRAUD.