.

There is no absolute mandate to pursue an agenda that has not, at the very least, been placed out before the voting public for dissection and analysis and review.

I took the liberty of  keeping a copy of every major party's policy statement PRIOR to the 2010 election, and I can safely say that not only did the incumbent party, once in power - NOT abide by its own policy as stated to the public - but actually launched on a different program entirely.

There was ZERO suggestion of any '50% women CEOs" or the equally mythical "Women in combat" in the Labor policy platform, and these were issues never aired before the general public before that election, so NOBODY got any chance to review these before that election.

This form of 'mandate' is not only a false application of the privilege of political power - it is a deliberate lie sold to the public by omission - and as such deserves to be struck down by that same public.

I have previously stated that it is the duty of the 'courts' to review legislation ( and most importantly, regulation and departmental policy) to ensure that it complies with the rule of Law - and NOT to accept the 'law as written' as automatically in effect.  You saw an example of this with the Dr Haneef affair - following which striking down by the courts, the government sought to bring in legislation to change the rules in an attempt to ensure that it 'won' such issues.

That style of seeking after a solution that places all the cards in the hands of the accuser (government etc) is anathema to the rule of Law and to democracy, and should rightly ALSO be struck down by the courts.

Where the courts and the government form a single monolithic structure and work as one to ensure the enshrinement of legislation that abrogates the Rule of Law - there remains the right and the duty of The People to strike it down.

'...that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it., and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organising its Powere in such Form, as to them seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that government long established should not be changed for light or transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object (abolition of the Forms to which the populace are accustomed), evinces a Design to reduce them under Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security'.

US Declaration of Independence.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:


they went into an election EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY saying 'there will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead'. Like it or not, the current carbon tax is a clear and unequivocal breach of that promise. that is why your clown-like comment about promising one thing and doing another was so entertaining!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 7:40am:


a plabiscite was just an example to try and get the discussion of a mandate onto simplistic grounds to establish a pattern for further discussion. It would be extremely unlikely to happen for many reasons not the least of which is that it is not binding.

The real point was to establish whether or not the various debaters think that the clearly given wishes of the electorate thru a plebiscite should be followed by the parliament. This enabled us to disentangle the complexities of an election campaign from the question. If you read the responses you will see why the discussion of mandate always founders. Posters here actually dont believe in govt by the wishes of the people at all! John Smith was at least honest in saying he cares for no opinion other than his own. FD argues for the rule of the majority except when the majority opposes his passionate belief. There can be no simpler nor more accurate determination of the wishes of the people than to hold a plebiscite on a single question. But according to FD there are 'better methods'. Methods that will no doubt involve a degree of complexity and bias.

The question of a mandate is complex because it is essentially a moral one, not a legal one. But here we see that the fundamental problem is that too many posters dont really believe in representative democracy at all.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 7:49am:


They went to the election EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY promising an ETS .. you were lucky if a carbon tax was even mentioned at all , and you know as well as I do that she didn't win the election outright and needed to negotiate a new position to get to the ETS .. If you cannot see the difference you need to have your head checked.

OK Longy, this is the first time I answered it:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:


freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:


Note that in saying I would support the outcome, I do not mean I would change my opinion to agree with the majority.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:


you do sometimes mindlessly wank on with zero regard for what others are saying.

I repeatedly asked you the single question if you believed a parliament was duty-bound to honour the outcome of a plebiscite of the entire voting public. and I gave and example of carbon tax repeal and gay marriage specifically so there could not be any partisan bias in the answer.  And what was you answer???

YOU REFUSED TO GIVE ONE.

you have repeatedly rabbited on about direct democracy and yet when confronted with the single most direct form of democracy (literally asking everyone) you were found wanting. Even now you cannot put forward and actual opinion because You dont really believe in direct democracy at all. You beleive in you version of DD where a very small subset of people vote on these matters and curiously are not a genuine subset of voters but rather a group that follows your slant more closely.

You have - as it typical of left-wig nutjobs - repeatedly misrepresented my opinion. Your understanding of 'majority' depends on the context you are discussing.  If it is a carbon tax you somehow assume that there is a mandate and a majority supporting it (despite polls saying the exact opposite) but when the coalition wants a policy you refer to the fasct that their primary vote is below 50%.

Your understanding of the concept of mandate is virtually non-existent because you are trapped in a miasma of your own making. Just as you repeatedly wish to give an artificial legup to minor parties you really dont think much of the wishes of the people.

If you beleived in actual democracy where the wishes of the people are paramount you would support the repeal of the carbon tax. It is in fact a litmus test of your ideological position. Do yu support the primacy of the wishes of the electorate or the primacy of your own opinion.

Like most self-obsessed, faux-righteous left-wingers, you assume that you know better and enforcing your opinion is the preferred solution.

Isnt it lucky therefore that the Australian people have seen thru this garbage and are about to install the coalition into power with a record majority.

True representative democracy is not yet dead - despite your wishes and best efforts.