This is an article from the Guardian

Tony Abbott's carbon price referendum was a flop

The results of the Australian election are far from a mandate for abolition – voters preferred to stay home instead

Abbott leads a coalition of parties comprised largely of climate deniers.

Just five days before polling day, then-opposition leader Tony Abbott declared at Australia's National Press Club that the 2013 election would be a referendum on the carbon price.

"More than anything," Mr Abbott said, "this election is a referendum on the carbon tax."

The Australian federal election was held on Saturday 7 September, an event notable for vast absenteeism at the polling booths in a nation with compulsory voting.

Factoring in early voting and postal voting, there are likely to be more than 2 million enrolled voters out of over 14 million, who chose to pay a fine rather than vote on Saturday. The electoral commission's website is being progressively updated as votes are still being counted, but it is likely that fewer people voted this year than in the previous election three years ago.

Abbott, who leads a coalition of parties comprised largely of climate deniers, made it clear in during the election campaign that he has no plans whatsoever to tackle climate change.

His single climate policy, called "Direct Action" was jettisoned days before the poll when he revealed that he would spend no more than the slated $3.2bn in industry hand-outs for carbon reductions and tree planting — even if that meant missing the bipartisan 5% emission reduction target. Analysis of the Direct Action policy by the Climate Institute shows that it would have been $4bn short to reach the 5% target.

Although Australia is still in care-taker mode, Tony Abbott has directed the public service to commence drafting legislation that would abolish the carbon price.

The ABC reported:

Mr Abbott's spokesman - and likely minister - for the environment, Greg Hunt, says scrapping the carbon tax will be new government's "first order of business".

The cost of repealing the carbon price has been estimated at over $6bn over four years. This is in addition to the $3.2bn that Abbott would waste on its Direct Action policy.

To successfully abolish the carbon price, Tony Abbott would need to navigate the relevant bills through a newly constituted Senate that from next year will be comprised of a cross bench of conservative minor parties, the Greens party and the opposition Labor party. Both the Greens party and Labor have said they will oppose moves to abolish the carbon price.

Alternatively, Abbott could take the bills to the current Senate, where the balance of power is held by fewer independent senators, notably anti-poker machine senator Nick Xenophon and socially conservative senator John Madigan.

Returning to Saturday's election, it is worth recognising that if 2013 was a referendum on the carbon price, then there was no clear result.

Despite Australia supposedly experiencing a "conservative tide" following the three years of minority government under Labor, Abbott's relentless campaign against the carbon price resulted in a paltry 1.7% swing to his Liberal National party coalition. In the Senate, Australia's house of review, the LNP saw a swing against it.

In fact, more pro-carbon price senators were elected than anti-carbon price (35 to 33). Mr Abbott needs 39 votes to pass legislation through the senate.

This is hardly a decisive result in the "referendum election".

In his victory speech, Abbott said: "In three years' time, the carbon tax will be gone." This was the sole reference to the issue that "more than anything" the election was about.

The result on Saturday is far from a mandate for Abbott's agenda to abolish the carbon tax. Given the choice, after three years of negative campaigning by the prime minister elect, to rush to the ballot box and vote against the carbon price, Australians seem to have preferred to stay home instead. His referendum was a failure

The Guardian is a Pinko rag

Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax

(1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base
(2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years

and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are an idiot arnt you.  What your talking about is who won the election. Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax.  Here's an idea get your face out of dear leader Abbotts arse and THINK for yourself fool. 

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

The Guardian is a Pinko rag

Any newspaper that doesn't advocate giving you bludger businesses a handout you call a pinko rag.  Here's an idea, Stop always putting your handout to the Australian public and work for your money like the rest of us do. Oh an pay the same rate of tax as we do bludger.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

You are an idiot arnt you.  What your talking about is who won the election. Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax.  Here's an idea get your face out of dear leader Abbotts arse and THINK for yourself fool.

In the run-up to the 2010 election neither party said they would introduce a carbon tax. In the run-up to the 2013 election both parties said they would abolish the carbon tax. Rudd even said the ALP had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax

I think you need to go back to your Doc and get some extra strength anti-delusion medications........ ;D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D You are an idiot arnt you.  What your talking about is who won the election. Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax.  Here's an idea get your face out of dear leader Abbotts arse and THINK for yourself fool.

Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax

(1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base
(2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years

and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

The idiot is you

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:19pm: Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax I think you need to go back to your Doc and get some extra strength anti-delusion medications........ ;D

why? it could be argued that people voted for the senate they voted for so as to block Abbott ..... contrary to what you may believe, most people who voted liberal didn't do so because of one issue.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

If conservatives are so sure about their path of environmental terrorism, take it to a DD at the earliest possible opportunity.

John Smith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:27pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:19pm: Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax I think you need to go back to your Doc and get some extra strength anti-delusion medications........ ;D why? it could be argued that people voted for the senate they voted for so as to block Abbott ..... contrary to what you may believe, most people who voted liberal didn't do so because of one issue.

You'd better go with the Chimp Smiddy

____ wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D If conservatives are so sure about their path of environmental terrorism, take it to a DD at the earliest possible opportunity.

Then the Greens and Labor need to vote down the legislation

Greens lost 25% of its voter base because you had a carbon tax

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

The Guardian is a Pinko rag

It's still far better than the fascist propaganda of the Murdoch press. At least the Guardian doesn't have a long and sordid history of printing fabrications. Watch the ABC's Media Watch, and it's not long before yet another example of mendacious Murdoch muppetry is paraded for the morbid curiosity of the masses.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

____ wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:33pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D If conservatives are so sure about their path of environmental terrorism, take it to a DD at the earliest possible opportunity. Then the Greens and Labor need to vote down the legislation

Yeah, bring it. Then we'll get an election campaign where the puppet Coalition's policies are actually scrutinised, including by the Coalition themselves. (Boat buy-back? Internet filter policy that they clearly didn't even read before announcing? Bahahaha!!  ;D)

Bam wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 10:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:40pm: ____ wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:33pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D If conservatives are so sure about their path of environmental terrorism, take it to a DD at the earliest possible opportunity. Then the Greens and Labor need to vote down the legislation Yeah, bring it. Then we'll get an election campaign where the puppet Coalition's policies are actually scrutinised, including by the Coalition themselves. (Boat buy-back? Internet filter policy that they clearly didn't even read before announcing? Bahahaha!!  ;D)

It was scrutinised and and Greens lost 25% of it's voter base and Labor primary votes lowest in 100 years

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

____ wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:33pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D If conservatives are so sure about their path of environmental terrorism, take it to a DD at the earliest possible opportunity. Then the Greens and Labor need to vote down the legislation Greens lost 25% of its voter base because you had a carbon tax

Then the coalition should grow some balls and take it to a DD early next year.

By then a mass of voters will have realise what morons they voted in ~ environmental terrorists and science deniers while Australia burns this summer.

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:31pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:27pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:19pm: Yes Abbott won the election.  But he did not get a mandate for repealing the carbon tax I think you need to go back to your Doc and get some extra strength anti-delusion medications........ ;D why? it could be argued that people voted for the senate they voted for so as to block Abbott ..... contrary to what you may believe, most people who voted liberal didn't do so because of one issue. You'd better go with the Chimp Smiddy

do you want to pretend they didn't vote for the senate? Or do you think the senate doesn't matter?

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

The Guardian is a Pinko rag

Stop the Boats ????

____ wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:40pm: ____ wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:33pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D If conservatives are so sure about their path of environmental terrorism, take it to a DD at the earliest possible opportunity. Then the Greens and Labor need to vote down the legislation Greens lost 25% of its voter base because you had a carbon tax Then the coalition should grow some balls and take it to a DD early next year. By then a mass of voters will have realise what morons they voted in ~ environmental terrorists and science deniers while Australia burns this summer.

Yep - let's see the DD.

And watch Tony try to sell his "we will pay big polluters" Tax

Or will Tony go back to Denier Tony?

Let's see the "free market" Party abolish a market-based scheme and replace it with a Communistic"use tax payers money to pay the polluters" plan.

Or is Tony lying about "Direct Action"?

A flop?
Hardly.
Labor's biggest primary vote fail in a hundred years...

I'd say as a referendum on the air we breath out tax it was a massive result.

FAIL Labor and the Greens.

Grendel wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 11:43pm:

A flop? Hardly. Labor's biggest primary vote fail in a hundred years... I'd say as a referendum on the air we breath out tax it was a massive result. FAIL Labor and the Greens.

But of course it was not a referendum on the carbon tax.  The election was fought on a huge number of issues.  I think for many of you racists "Stop the boats" would have been a big motivation and many of those racists would have supported the carbon tax, but gave their racist inclinations priority despite lib policy on the carbon tax.  And that was repeated with every issue in the election.  Education, Parental support, economic management etc etc.  Remember if you define mandate as widely as the liberals want you to then its your power they are eating into.  If you want a mandate then give us a referendum to vote on.  An election is not a referendum.  The constitution treats them differently because they are different.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

This is an article from the Guardian Tony Abbott's carbon price referendum was a flop The results of the Australian election are far from a mandate for abolition – voters preferred to stay home instead Abbott leads a coalition of parties comprised largely of climate deniers. Just five days before polling day, then-opposition leader Tony Abbott declared at Australia's National Press Club that the 2013 election would be a referendum on the carbon price. "More than anything," Mr Abbott said, "this election is a referendum on the carbon tax." The Australian federal election was held on Saturday 7 September, an event notable for vast absenteeism at the polling booths in a nation with compulsory voting. Factoring in early voting and postal voting, there are likely to be more than 2 million enrolled voters out of over 14 million, who chose to pay a fine rather than vote on Saturday. The electoral commission's website is being progressively updated as votes are still being counted, but it is likely that fewer people voted this year than in the previous election three years ago. Abbott, who leads a coalition of parties comprised largely of climate deniers, made it clear in during the election campaign that he has no plans whatsoever to tackle climate change. His single climate policy, called "Direct Action" was jettisoned days before the poll when he revealed that he would spend no more than the slated $3.2bn in industry hand-outs for carbon reductions and tree planting — even if that meant missing the bipartisan 5% emission reduction target. Analysis of the Direct Action policy by the Climate Institute shows that it would have been $4bn short to reach the 5% target. Although Australia is still in care-taker mode, Tony Abbott has directed the public service to commence drafting legislation that would abolish the carbon price. The ABC reported: Mr Abbott's spokesman - and likely minister - for the environment, Greg Hunt, says scrapping the carbon tax will be new government's "first order of business". The cost of repealing the carbon price has been estimated at over $6bn over four years. This is in addition to the $3.2bn that Abbott would waste on its Direct Action policy. To successfully abolish the carbon price, Tony Abbott would need to navigate the relevant bills through a newly constituted Senate that from next year will be comprised of a cross bench of conservative minor parties, the Greens party and the opposition Labor party. Both the Greens party and Labor have said they will oppose moves to abolish the carbon price. Alternatively, Abbott could take the bills to the current Senate, where the balance of power is held by fewer independent senators, notably anti-poker machine senator Nick Xenophon and socially conservative senator John Madigan. Returning to Saturday's election, it is worth recognising that if 2013 was a referendum on the carbon price, then there was no clear result. Despite Australia supposedly experiencing a "conservative tide" following the three years of minority government under Labor, Abbott's relentless campaign against the carbon price resulted in a paltry 1.7% swing to his Liberal National party coalition. In the Senate, Australia's house of review, the LNP saw a swing against it. In fact, more pro-carbon price senators were elected than anti-carbon price (35 to 33). Mr Abbott needs 39 votes to pass legislation through the senate. This is hardly a decisive result in the "referendum election". In his victory speech, Abbott said: "In three years' time, the carbon tax will be gone." This was the sole reference to the issue that "more than anything" the election was about. The result on Saturday is far from a mandate for Abbott's agenda to abolish the carbon tax. Given the choice, after three years of negative campaigning by the prime minister elect, to rush to the ballot box and vote against the carbon price, Australians seem to have preferred to stay home instead. His referendum was a failure

it is hard to take seriously an article with a comment such as the highlighted one.  it clearly reveals the writes extreme bias and therefore makes their 'conclusion' of no worth.

and in other news... scientists now fear a coming mini ice age!!

longweekend58

Yes its like Muslims calling non believers infidels and Indians calling meat eaters non-vegetarians, its just shows complete bias.

Man made global warming is at best an interesting theory and remains such until proof.

If you believe in the theory then you are the more a faith based person, if your sceptical you are fact based.

I am very unconvinced about our ability to understand and investigate the theory, let alone settle on it.

I think its a theory that needs to sit on the shelf cold case style until science catches up with a true ability to investigate the question .... which maybe never.

In the mean time sure we can improve how we consume our environment but that is the reality is we need do so to survive.

This is all moot as our CT is going to reduce the temperature by 0.0000000000001 in about a gazillion years according to the muppets that support it. Its a question the ALP continually avoided.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

longweekend58 Yes its like Muslims calling non believers infidels and Indians calling meat eaters non-vegetarians, its just shows complete bias. Man made global warming is at best an interesting theory and remains such until proof. If you believe in the theory then you are the more a faith based person, if your sceptical you are fact based. I am very unconvinced about our ability to understand and investigate the theory, let alone settle on it. I think its a theory that needs to sit on the shelf cold case style until science catches up with a true ability to investigate the question .... which maybe never. In the mean time sure we can improve how we consume our environment but that is the reality is we need do so to survive. This is all moot as our CT is going to reduce the temperature by 0.0000000000001 in about a gazillion years according to the muppets that support it. Its a question the ALP continually avoided.

Hey Fred, your talking to the wrong person. Longweekend is a devout Christian (although he doesn't let it interfere with the manner he conducts his daly life).  Christians and Global warming deniers are the ones who believe in Fairy tales.   

DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD!!!!  BRING IT ONNNNNN

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Both the Greens and Labor went to the election with a carbon tax (1) Greens lost almost 25% of the voter base (2) Labor got the lowest primary vote in 100 years and you think this was a flop for Abbott?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

the idiot doesnt understand the difference between a referendum and a mandate..


worst PRIMARY IN 100 YEARS>>>

SUCK IT UP... 8-) 8-) 8-)


can it get any worse than that?????????????????????????

I bet some leftie is searching searching right now...LOLOLOL

What exactly is people's definition of a mandate in Australian politics?

Control of the lower house, control of both houses, a 5 seat majority, 10, 15?

Verge

I don't think there is a definition ....... if a party goes to an election with big ticket items and win easily, the opposition does need to look at these.

If your looking for a Technical definition then if the LNP controls the senate then they have a mandate for everything, given the ALP never had a mandate for a CT and even lied about introducing it ...... they really have zero credibility, if they want to maintain zero credibility then sure oppose what the LNP specifically said they would do.

I think morally the ALP need to support the removal of the CT as they lied about but I think strategically they need to support if they ever want to govern again.

I call that a mandate of the people, if the ALP think they are right lets see what happens at the next election.

FYI did the ALP think they had a mandate to be economically stupid ?
Did the ALP think they had a mandate for opening our borders ?

Verge wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

What exactly is people's definition of a mandate in Australian politics? Control of the lower house, control of both houses, a 5 seat majority, 10, 15?

Verge, a mandate is what the majority of people have authorised  party to do.  We know that the majority in the last election authorised the Abbott parliamentary party to be the government for the next 3 years (and it could be by a majority of 30, 50 seats, doesn't matter, all that's a mandate for is a mandate to govern). But beyond that our electoral system is not geared to give mandates because we cant see from the election results what the majority wants about anything. To pretend that by us ticking a box against someone's name every 3 years means that a majority has authorised the government to do everything it spoke about in the election is a lie.  Many would have voted Abbott in the House but not in the senate specifically to stop him from repealing the carbon tax and many would have voted for him because they wanted to stop the boats but disapproved of his policy on the carbon tax.  Where is the majority in all that.  We wont know from the election.  The only way we will really know and what you should be insisting on (if you want a real democracy ) is that if they want a mandate they should put it to a referendum. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD, DD!!!!  BRING IT ONNNNNN

It won't be required.  The Senate balance is looking to be held by the centre right and no longer the radical left.