Federal Election 2013

[Inside Shoulder]

checks and balances in the system.

Or what Keating called "unrepresentative swill"

 

[redstragic]

Getting sick of the mandate argument. This elected government only has a mandate to govern in the lower house. Any perception of a mandate beyond that truly shows disrespect for the checks and balances in the system.

If I vote differently in the upper house than the lower it is because I want the governments "mandate" tempered. It would seem many other Australian's agree given the make up of the senate.

PS, please don't read that as I voted for Abbot.

 

[Bowside]

I voted differently in the different houses. (Granted preferences probably meant both votes ended up with the same mob.)

I think the smaller parties play an increasingly important role as we become more disillusioned with the 2 main parties.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think the smaller parties play an increasingly important role as we become more disillusioned with the 2 main parties.

You need to be very aware of the 3rd or 4th order policies of these parties.
Note how the "shooters and fishers" are holding the NSW Government to ransom in the upper house.
For instance how's this from the Lib Dems:

Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
http://ldp.org.au/policies/1152-firearms

 

[boyo]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...pares-to-exit-stage-right-20130912-2tnkj.html

Karma.

 

[Spieber]

Conspiracy theory gets bigger - new member for Hume is another Syd Uni Rhodes Scholar - the Corporation continues its winning ways both on and off the field.

 

[Ruggo]

If I vote differently in the upper house than the lower it is because I want the governments "mandate" tempered. It would seem many other Australian's agree given the make up of the senate.

PS, please don't read that as I voted for Abbot.

Who you voted for is your business and that's democracy. I think this mandate concept is a false to begin with. Governments need to work at implementing their agenda's. Accept amendments to pass bills if need be but never is or should it be a case of just sweeping the new governments policies into legislation.

The Senate voting needs reform. Sure everybody has the right to have a crack but the voters need to know the policies of these parties to make an informed decision. It is a big issue.

 

[Pusser]

I think above the line voting should be abolished with optional preferential below the line. You should have to number a minimum of say 12 to have a valid vote. That means you don't have to number everyone unless you want too and you are not forced to give preferences to people you don't know or you do know but wouldn't feed. Above the line voting just gives too much power to the parties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[boyo]

A vote for a party doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees with every single policy/plan/promise that said party offers.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Getting sick of the mandate argument. This elected government only has a mandate to govern in the lower house. Any perception of a mandate beyond that truly shows disrespect for the checks and balances in the system.

The mandate argument gets rolled out all the time - well at least the last 10 elections. Even in the last election after a minority Government was formed there was the mandate debate. Hell Rob Oakshott believed he had a mandate for Parliamentary reform with the way Question Time ran, MPIs etc.

After 2007 the ALP believed they had a mandate to change the workplace relations system, but how many of the public actually read their policy document - Forward with fairness - to understand what exactly they were going to do.

The mandate debate (if you can call it that) is like a lot of things in modern politics, a sideshow, an easy line for the media to pick up and run with as a means for attempting to put political pressure on your opponent(s).

But when Parliament resumes things will go on as they normally do. The Government will introduce Bills into the House, they will be debated, it will pass the House and then go to the upper house where there will be further debate and possibly senate committee enquiries and them further debate and voting. No matter what's being said in the public arena of the media, the business of Parliament will run its normal course and wheeling and dealing in the relative chambers will continue.

 

[Ruggo]

The mandate argument is bullshit.

To knock this crap on the head I sure hope Labor drums the message of where was Abbott's mandate to oppose the CPRS? The Howard Coalition in 2007 took a belief in a market based approach into the election. Turnbull actually used the parliamentary system as it is meant to introduce amendments which were agreed upon in principle. Where does Abbott's bullshit rhetoric about mandates fit into this factual piece of history? That is the message Labor needs to drive home.

 

[Runner]

If the senate hears the bill and rejects it the Libs can test the mandate argument with a double dissolution at the cost of millions. ALP has just had worst result in 100 years. Do the ALP want to test the mandate as this will be great for Abbott to show they are still wasting your money in opposition and who will support the ALP? The greens --and has Australia had enough of that little duo.
On top of that the ALP is in chaos for a month at least before we have a leader.
Abbott should recall parliament this week and lets see what ALP will do without an opposition leader or shadow ministers. They are as Conroy says a farce

 

[AngrySeahorse]

Speaking of the importance of the smaller parties it looks like the LDP (again) has screwed over the Sex Party (no pun intended) of getting a seat in the senate.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1...nor-rival-over-preference-form-bungle/?cs=306

 

[boyo]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/hockeys-false-budget-crisis-20130915-2tsl8.html

I've long-thought that all the budget emergency/crisis was purely for political gain, not based on any concern for Australia's economic situation (a faux concern).

The article mentions a 10-year mining boom (during Coalition and ALP governments) with bugger-all to show for it - this is of concern.

 

[Ruggo]

Hockey is a muppet. Anybody who bought into this budget emergency furfy is a muppet. Anybody who buys into this Labor can't manage the economy crap is a muppet. A couple of Labor visionaries made the Australian economy what it is today.

 

[Ruggo]

It's ok though peoples. Because there is no budget emergency, we can now buy more Indonesian fishing boats.

 

[ACT Crusader]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/hockeys-false-budget-crisis-20130915-2tsl8.html

I've long-thought that all the budget emergency/crisis was purely for political gain, not based on any concern for Australia's economic situation (a faux concern).

The article mentions a 10-year mining boom (during Coalition and ALP governments) with bugger-all to show for it - this of concern.

Income tax cuts and more income tax cuts from both Howard and Rudd......

 

[Lindommer]

Or what Keating called "unrepresentative swill"

Funnily enough, Keating's cry re the Senate couldn't've been more incorrect: about 5% of the voters from most states supported the Greens, and they've got, about, 5% of every states' senators. Same for the odd occasion the Australian Democrats got a gig: 2%, or whatever, of the national Senate vote and they got, what?, 2% of the Senate spots.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Funnily enough, Keating's cry re the Senate could'nt've been more incorrect: about 5% of the voters from most states supported the Greens, and they've got, about, 5% of every states' senators. Same for the odd occasion the Australian Democrats got a gig: 2%, or whatever, of the national Senate vote and they got, what? 2% of the Senate spots.

he was ahead of his time

 

[Spieber]

Funnily enough, Keating's cry re the Senate could'nt've been more incorrect: about 5% of the voters from most states supported the Greens, and they've got, about, 5% of every states' senators. Same for the odd occasion the Australian Democrats got a gig: 2%, or whatever, of the national Senate vote and they got, what?, 2% of the Senate spots.

Hmm, I always thought it was a reference to only needing 47,000 votes in Tasmania as opposed to 575,000 votes required in NSW.