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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Dnarever wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:43am:


perhaps because your recollection of the previous labor opposition is fictional. they were by no accounts a reasonable opposition as you make them out to be.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:01pm:


Your hypocrisy is breathtaking and your chutzpah for coming out and making these demands is just astounding.

Kevin Rudd went to the 2007 election with a CPRS. He announced it, he spruiked it, he claimed it as a step towards addressing "the greatest moral challenge of our time". There was no doubt that he was behind it, the coalition had its own version of it and the public was widely supportive of it.

Labor won the election comfortably and went about trying to introduce it.

The Liberals under Turnbull had some qualms with the policy but were ready to pass it through the Senate after some changes had been thrashed out.

Your messiah Tony, with the will of the voting public firmly in mind, decided that he would challenge for the leadership and then take away support for the CPRS in the Senate.

... and here you are saying that Labor should agree to scrapping the Carbon Tax because the Liberals will most probably win the next election.

Agreeing or disagreeing with certain policies is par for the course and should be encouraged.

Cracking a dummy spit and demanding that everybody does what Tony says because he won the election is petulant and childish.

For the record, I think that the Greens should have supported the CPRS, and, even though I am generally supportive of them, I was disappointed in them for this as I was disappointed in Rudd for not pushing for a DD when he had the trigger.

Further, as much as I disagree with and dislike Tony Abbott (which is a considerable amount, don't get me wrong on that), I would never accuse him of "ignoring democracy" just because he voted against something that was a clear election promise from Rudd.

By the way, if, as polls continually show, the majority of Australians support marriage equality, should Tony  back this wholeheartedly?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 12:21pm:


my problem with your definition of a mandate is that it is essentially nothing more than the state when one party can rule without reference to another. that diminishes a mandate from a moral position to a simplistic legalistic one.  IM trying to find out if you think Abbott would have a MORAL mandate to demand labor repeal the CT in the circumstances that are likely to arise where he has a massive lower house majority while the half-senate system ensures that he wont have one in the upper house.

Luke Fowler wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 12:48pm:


so in summary, your position is one of a dummy spit rather than a principled position? Something doesnt become right or wrong on the basis of what someone else did. it becomes right or wrong on principle. And as usual, the concept of principle eludes almost everyone except perhaps dsmithy.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 3:30pm:


I don't see it that way, sure on the issue De Jour that was debated throughout the election campaign, sure the mandate is given & should be respected, there can be no doubt a 75% majority in the lower house is a mandate on an issue so the Senate should respect that & pass the bill. However on every other issue the old adversarial model would apply & you would have to bring the people & therefore any independent/smaller party with you.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 3:30pm:


No he would not.
Why?
Because his "Thumping Majority" will not be won through a contest of ideas but a drubbing due to perceived(or real depending on your sway) incompetence & anger.

He wants to put up his ideas, seriously discussing alternative policy & funding sources to those ideas, well that would be great & may well change my mind, but as we have discussed this will not happen, any policy released will be deliberately vague & so close to poll as to avoid in depth scrutiny.
He will win through dissatisfaction rather than vision.

A mandate requires a vision be put forward.
AXING THE TAX
is a slogan NOT a vision.

He wants to make DA the major thrust of his campaign
Explain why taking money from taxpayers, not just repealing the compo, but actually using money from consolidated revenue thereby reducing the pool for services to give to already obscenely profitable companies.
Where, how many & how much all these trees will go
Who will ensure the many millions of saplings mature into carbon absorbing trees.
etc etc etc
Then Yes he will have a Mandate.