Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Spartan117]

There is no way a Tax will reduce temperature.

Labor is bankrupting the country with all their waste and now this Carbon Tax is a money grab.

I love the environment but taking away my disposable income away from Footy games and restarants wont make any difference for the planet.

 

[Kul]

how out-of-pocket will you be?

 

[Chris]

After telling us at the last election there will be no Carbon Tax, the Government doesnt have a mandate to impose this tax. I think the Government should go to the polls and see what the Australian people want.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Labor is bankrupting the country with all their waste and now this Carbon Tax is a money grab.

There is always waste with government expenditure. I actually think this government has been pretty good considering circumstances.

 

[hammertime]

After telling us at the last election there will be no Carbon Tax, the Government doesnt have a mandate to impose this tax. I think the Government should go to the polls and see what the Australian people want.

Even though I support a Carbon Tax, I agree Chris. It's making a mockery of democracy.

But what really still annoys me is the forming of **post election** coalition with independents from liberal seats on the back of bribery!!!

People need to know about allegiances and major policy BEFORE they vote!

 

[hammertime]

Labor is bankrupting the country with all their waste and now this Carbon Tax is a money grab.

There is always waste with government expenditure. I actually think this government has been pretty good considering circumstances.

You are kidding right? Their policy was majorly flawed. No research what so ever

1) The BER was organized by a government department instead of using a organization like the P&C in each school. Certain developments were made mandatory, like Halls even if one was existing. Coincidence that there is a ruddy big a 'Labor' plaque is outside these halls where usually people vote?
2) Ceiling batts policy did not outlaw foil instillation even though most comes from china, there is inherent safety risks and it was plain to see that people outside the industry could come in to install these. Not only **People Died**, but only half the homes were done.
3) Cash handouts were used to inflate Chinese manufacturing through retail.
4) Set top boxes. $400 each. Enough said.
5) NBN is going to the home!!! The take up rate has been appalling. How about fiber to the node for half price? People connect to their home if they want it or work through copper until we need it? Again, waste. Do you want the government to wipe our behinds for us too?

There is more that I haven't got time for.

There is not always waste if things are thought through or that they have more respect for tax dollars. They have been utterly terrible and have created a new inefficient form of big government with their interventions.

 

[Kul]

Even though I support a Carbon Tax, I agree Chris. It's making a mockery of democracy.

But what really still annoys me is the forming of **post election** coalition with independents from liberal seats on the back of bribery!!!

People need to know about allegiances and major policy BEFORE they vote!

This is a fundamentally flawed point of view to take and works against the democratic process upon which our constitution was formed.

You vote for your local member who stands up in Parliament as one of 150 voices/votes; you don't vote for a government.
Your vote goes towards whoever on the ballot list best suits your preferences. This may be someone who is part of a party, or it may not. Either way, they are both equal. Your preferred candidate may align themselves with a party, but ultimately (and legally) their vote in Parliament is their own.

This suggestion that the government "doesn't have a mandate" is only seriously touted by those with little understanding of the Westminster system. Who ever was able to form government after the last election by satisfying the Governor General has the right to govern the country regardless of if it is…
a) a majority of many smaller parties in agreement
b) one party with a majority
c) a coalition of two large parties with a majority

Labor got the majority, the Liberals did not.
Abbott and Gillard had to court the remaining independents to get the numbers and Gillard won, Abbott did not.

To then cry foul and claim that "they have no mandate" implies that the system is a Presidential system, where the power is vested in the executive. Sorry, that's not how the Westminster system works.

Labor won enough seats and secured the support of enough independents to satisfy the Governor General that a majority could be reached on the floor of the House of Representatives and THAT is the only mandate that they need. Suggesting that the 48% of the floor has MORE of a mandate than 52% shows either a lack of understanding of how our system works or failure to grasp the concept of a majority.

You will have your chance to vote on this government's plans at the next election. We don't call elections each time a bill is proposed.

FTR, i voted Liberal.

 

[Yossarian]

Even though I support a Carbon Tax, I agree Chris. It's making a mockery of democracy.

But what really still annoys me is the forming of **post election** coalition with independents from liberal seats on the back of bribery!!!

People need to know about allegiances and major policy BEFORE they vote!

This is a fundamentally flawed point of view to take and works against the democratic process upon which our constitution was formed.

You vote for your local member who stands up in Parliament as one of 150 voices/votes; you don't vote for a government.
Your vote goes towards whoever on the ballot list best suits your preferences. This may be someone who is part of a party, or it may not. Either way, they are both equal. Your preferred candidate may align themselves with a party, but ultimately (and legally) their vote in Parliament is their own.

This suggestion that the government "doesn't have a mandate" is only seriously touted by those with little understanding of the Westminster system. Who ever was able to form government after the last election by satisfying the Governor General has the right to govern the country regardless of if it is…
a) a majority of many smaller parties in agreement
b) one party with a majority
c) a coalition of two large parties with a majority

Labor got the majority, the Liberals did not.
Abbott and Gillard had to court the remaining independents to get the numbers and Gillard won, Abbott did not.

To then cry foul and claim that "they have no mandate" implies that the system is a Presidential system, where the power is vested in the executive. Sorry, that's not how the Westminster system works.

Labor won enough seats and secured the support of enough independents to satisfy the Governor General that a majority could be reached on the floor of the House of Representatives and THAT is the only mandate that they need. Suggesting that the 48% of the floor has MORE of a mandate than 52% shows either a lack of understanding of how our system works or failure to grasp the concept of a majority.

You will have your chance to vote on this government's plans at the next election. We don't call elections each time a bill is proposed.

FTR, i voted Liberal.

Stop talking sense Kul - the neo-cons hate it when you bring the facts into the debate. Strange that they said nothing about BOF solar panel policy…

 

[hammertime]

Even though I support a Carbon Tax, I agree Chris. It's making a mockery of democracy.

But what really still annoys me is the forming of **post election** coalition with independents from liberal seats on the back of bribery!!!

People need to know about allegiances and major policy BEFORE they vote!

This is a fundamentally flawed point of view to take and works against the democratic process upon which our constitution was formed.

You vote for your local member who stands up in Parliament as one of 150 voices/votes; you don't vote for a government.
Your vote goes towards whoever on the ballot list best suits your preferences. This may be someone who is part of a party, or it may not. Either way, they are both equal. Your preferred candidate may align themselves with a party, but ultimately (and legally) their vote in Parliament is their own.

This suggestion that the government "doesn't have a mandate" is only seriously touted by those with little understanding of the Westminster system. Who ever was able to form government after the last election by satisfying the Governor General has the right to govern the country regardless of if it is…
a) a majority of many smaller parties in agreement
b) one party with a majority
c) a coalition of two large parties with a majority

Labor got the majority, the Liberals did not.
Abbott and Gillard had to court the remaining independents to get the numbers and Gillard won, Abbott did not.

To then cry foul and claim that "they have no mandate" implies that the system is a Presidential system, where the power is vested in the executive. Sorry, that's not how the Westminster system works.

Labor won enough seats and secured the support of enough independents to satisfy the Governor General that a majority could be reached on the floor of the House of Representatives and THAT is the only mandate that they need. Suggesting that the 48% of the floor has MORE of a mandate than 52% shows either a lack of understanding of how our system works or failure to grasp the concept of a majority.

You will have your chance to vote on this government's plans at the next election. We don't call elections each time a bill is proposed.

FTR, i voted Liberal.

Hey, Hey, hey, I never said that "they had no mandate" or that it was against the Westminster system. I used to work on the federal budget mate, met Johhny H and Costello, I'm not some bozo here that you are talking to.

People vote people in on their policy and yes, to represent them. But Democracy in this aspect is flawed when the deciding the party in power, and therefore the head of the executive, is decided from shady backroom deals that have nothing to do with representing your people. No one knows what was promised and I 100% guarantee, you'll see some of these independents get a luxurious overseas ambassador posting in a few years time.

Those independents electorates did not support Labor and therefore as a representative these guys failed. They were put in a situation where they could be bought off with our tax dollars for their pet projects.

Don't even get me started about the false representations shown by Gillard. The people cannot be flat out lied to on major policy decisions like that before an election. Otherwise how is that a true representative of the people?

So, in summary, yes, it's not against the system, but parliament certainly does not represent the peoples voice since it was formed. Call that subjective if you will, but I'm pretty sure I could pull out some polling numbers for you.

All I'm saying is it's not against the system or the rules, but it's against the intention of democracy.

 

[hammertime]

Stop talking sense Kul - the neo-cons hate it when you bring the facts into the debate. Strange that they said nothing about BOF solar panel policy…

Didn't even see the BOF solar policy mentioned on here.

To be honest, I don't like it. Nor did I like it when Rudd slapped a means test on environmental measures like this. But Barry is in a very tough spot. He needs to save from somewhere and I can see the economics behind it if we want to sell off the Power Stations for a decent price.

So there are positives and negatives. Good for the finances, bad for the environment. With the Carbon Tax coming in, the solar industry should be ok.

I guarantee though, if the books were in better shape, Barry wouldn't need to do this.

 

[stryker]

how out-of-pocket will you be?

Thats the problem at the moment…no one can tell us honestly.

However from the prices rising for everything due to the flow on effects, one could assume that it'll be a fair slug.

 

[citizen_cub]

Its not so much the fact that the Carbon Tax is being introduced, it's the fact that Gillard clearly said "There will be no CT under the Government I lead" on live television and then Wayne Swan said "It's not possible that will be bringing in a Carbon Tax" on live radio. Might I add, this was during the election campaign when the polls were looking grim for Labor. Had they told the truth and had all the facts been revealed about the tax, I could have almost sworn they would not be in power as we speak.

 

[hammertime]

how out-of-pocket will you be?

Thats the problem at the moment…no one can tell us honestly.

However from the prices rising for everything due to the flow on effects, one could assume that it'll be a fair slug.

From what I understand, most low-medium income people should be compensated 100% I suspect. It will just cycle money around but give the incentive to the polluters to make inroads to reducing pollution. It's good policy.

The only issue is that you will have Financial Institutions, like the hedge fund I work in, trading in Carbon credits and that's going to reduce the effectiveness the more money they make off the back of it.

One major downside is that it could lead to another Enron situation with brownouts across the country if polluters can't afford the credits due to trading spikes. That's a massive risk that I hope the government will cover.

 

[citizen_cub]

Why doesn't Australia introduce First-past-the-post voting? Where the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. Preferential voting invokes democracy, it is not always a true reflection of who the electorate want to represent them. Had we had FPP voting at the recent 2010 election, you will find that Labor won about 10 marginal seats where they were GREATLY assisted by Greens preferences and had they not had these preferences they would have lost the seat.

John Murphy's seat of Reid is a great example of this. Peter Cooper the Liberal Candidate received 34,328 votes compared to Murphy's 33,051 yet after preferences, Murphy retains the seat. How's that for democracy? What the constituency have stated in this case is that they want the Liberal Party to represent their area.

The fact is, if a candidate/member receives the MOST votes, the electorate is sending a message that they WANT that particular person to represent their constituency. I would absolutely love to see how many Australia support preferential voting, why don't we hold a referendum over this issue?

 

[hammertime]

Why doesn't Australia introduce First-past-the-post voting? Where the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. Preferential voting invokes democracy, it is not always a true reflection of who the electorate want to represent them. Had we had FPP voting at the recent 2010 election, you will find that Labor won about 10 marginal seats where they were GREATLY assisted by Greens preferences and had they not had these preferences they would have lost the seat.

John Murphy's seat of Reid is a great example of this. Peter Cooper the Liberal Candidate received 34,328 votes compared to Murphy's 33,051 yet after preferences, Murphy retains the seat. How's that for democracy? What the constituency have stated in this case is that they want the Liberal Party to represent their area.

The fact is, if a candidate/member receives the MOST votes, the electorate is sending a message that they WANT that particular person to represent their constituency. I would absolutely love to see how many Australia support preferential voting, why don't we hold a referendum over this issue?

I don't know mate, I think it's a fair setup. The Australian public needs to be smarter about where the preferential votes will go, so maybe there should be more transparency with that.

But if we were to end up in the same situation like we did recently, I think a referendum is needed. Just to make sure executive power is no longer determined from bribery with our tax dollars but rather simply on the 2nd preference of the electorate.

 

[citizen_cub]

Well you've just encapsulated the other problem HT, how-to-vote cards. People should really think about who their preferences go to, instead of copying what their selected party's how-to-vote card says.

Labor and the Greens both have each other as second on their how-to-vote card which probably explains the trap many people are falling down.

 

[Yossarian]

Well you've just encapsulated the other problem HT, how-to-vote cards. People should really think about who their preferences go to, instead of copying what their selected party's how-to-vote card says.

Labor and the Greens both have each other as second on their how-to-vote card which probably explains the trap many people are falling down.

You've never considered that Greens voters WANT to put the ALP as their 2nd preference because they PREFER them to the Liberals? Seriously have a think about it… And while you're at it, give your take on the CDP ALWAYS preferencing the Coalition. Or any of the other religious nut groups. Despite your comments, the Greens do not always preference Labor, they often issue HTV with both the ALP and Libs as 2nd preferences or in Optional Preferential voting they don't issue preferences at all.

 

[Yossarian]

Why doesn't Australia introduce First-past-the-post voting? Where the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. Preferential voting invokes democracy, it is not always a true reflection of who the electorate want to represent them. Had we had FPP voting at the recent 2010 election, you will find that Labor won about 10 marginal seats where they were GREATLY assisted by Greens preferences and had they not had these preferences they would have lost the seat.

John Murphy's seat of Reid is a great example of this. Peter Cooper the Liberal Candidate received 34,328 votes compared to Murphy's 33,051 yet after preferences, Murphy retains the seat. How's that for democracy? What the constituency have stated in this case is that they want the Liberal Party to represent their area.

The fact is, if a candidate/member receives the MOST votes, the electorate is sending a message that they WANT that particular person to represent their constituency. I would absolutely love to see how many Australia support preferential voting, why don't we hold a referendum over this issue?

Your comments show a fundamental lack of understanding of what democracy means. If 50%+1 of the voters wanted Cooper, he would have won the election. The voting in that seat shows that a majority of voters DID NOT want Cooper. You're interpretation of the electorate's desires is wrong.

But hey if there was a competitive right wing party to suck Lib votes you'd change your tune pretty quick hey?

 

[citizen_cub]

Yossarian, the fact is Cooper received more votes than any other member or candidate in the seat meaning he has more support than Murphy. More people want him to represent the constituency than Murphy. BTW, I never mentioned anything about a majority!

How ILLITERATE are you? He receives more votes than any other member/candidate, means he has MORE support than the other member/candidates. It's not that hard to comprehend. Yes, and if their wasn't the Greens and their preferences going to Labor, I'm sure you'd be changing your view on preferential voting quickly as well.

 

[citizen_cub]

http://greens.org.au/howtovote

Here's the link to all the Greens HTV cards in every state at last year's federal election. BTW, they DON'T ONCE ever have the Liberal Party in front of the Labor party on preference order, which exposes your errant lie "the greens don't always preference Labor" :roll HA HA! Almost fell off my chair when I heard that one!.

The alliance is now as strong as ever considering that Melbourne Green Adam Bandt is now sitting on Labor's side of the parliament. The Greens have always favoured Labor and always will, they hold very similar views to Labor on political issues, you can't deny this.