Abbott in Government

[medhead]

Perhaps only tangentially related to Abbott in government. Have people seen that Peta Credlin one of his staff faced court on drink driving charges. But how is it possible for someone to blow 0.075, over the alcohol driving limit, and then have the charges dismissed by the magistrate? The news story is talk about no conviction, but I assume dismissing charges means no case to answer at all. :?:

 

[casanovawa]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Its like the old days, no way you can win with them, Howard was the biggest taxing PM in history, but when he cut taxes, it was all those irresponsible tax cuts on middle class welfare, leaving the budget in structural deficit plus not investing in all that infrastructure... Fast forward 6 years, accused of cutting "to the bone" then when its not as severe as they kept scaremongering its "what's the point of cutting by a rounding error"...

The only consistent thing is that they lie compulsively and want to have it both ways... Not that i think they would have hit their budget target like every other prediction they liked to trot out so i think the actual saving over what it would have been if we had let Labor keep bungling it would amount to more than $1.5 billion/yr... Hopefully the Libs don't have anything like Labor's woeful record and can deliver close to what they are planning and with a bit of luck of business confidence picking up now the adults are back in control, hopefully its even better than expected.... We'll see...

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Its like the old days, no way you can win with them, Howard was the biggest taxing PM in history, but when he cut taxes, it was all those irresponsible tax cuts on middle class welfare, leaving the budget in structural deficit plus not investing in all that infrastructure... Fast forward 6 years, accused of cutting "to the bone" then when its not as severe as they kept scaremongering its "what's the point of cutting by a rounding error"...

The only consistent thing is that they lie compulsively and want to have it both ways... Not that i think they would have hit their budget target like every other prediction they liked to trot out so i think the actual saving over what it would have been if we had let Labor keep bungling it would amount to more than $1.5 billion/yr... Hopefully the Libs don't have anything like Labor's woeful record and can deliver close to what they are planning and with a bit of luck of business confidence picking up now the adults are back in control, hopefully its even better than expected.... We'll see...

Yeah and you just applied double standards. Massive revenue contractions make it difficult to hit targets. That's treasury forecasts at fault. both sides have to suffer the same issue. Abbott's turn to get stuffed around.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Still it's a fair point. What's the total budget $400 billion? So hardly worth mentioning a saving of 0.25%.

It's not even that.

The Liberals have spent the last 5 years telling us about how the economy is a shambles, Labor is spending too much, and only they can stem the tide of debt through responsible Government.

Now we find out "responsible Government" means shaving $1.5b a year off a budget of $400b, most of which is realised by severely reducing aid to the poorest people in the world while giving some of the richest people in the world welfare because they had a baby.

It's classic Liberals policy - all the help they can bear for people who don't need it, SFA for people who do. A snapshot of how morally bankrupt contemporary conservative politics is.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Its like the old days, no way you can win with them, Howard was the biggest taxing PM in history, but when he cut taxes, it was all those irresponsible tax cuts on middle class welfare, leaving the budget in structural deficit plus not investing in all that infrastructure... Fast forward 6 years, accused of cutting "to the bone" then when its not as severe as they kept scaremongering its "what's the point of cutting by a rounding error"...

The point is not "what's the point of cutting by a rounding error", the point is "you've spent half a decade insisting how much better you can do, yet your idea of 'responsible Government' is for all practical purposes, no different to ours".

 

[777]

Subject: Abbott in government.
Content: Largely discussion about the role of small parties in the Senate

Can i make the obvious point that Tony Abbott in government has rhetorically flipped on two pretty big things compared to Tony Abbott in opposition already. 1. (relevant to the content above) is the need to do deals with small parties to get legislation passed (because, you know, actual governing involves that) and 2. Budget surpluses (remember when he promised one? He doesn't anymore - again, good government right now involves that).

Actually Tony Abbott is right in government about both these things. It's exactly what a responsible government needs to do. He was lying his a** off in opposition for 5 or so years though.

Actually i would rather have a leader who lies when it doesn't matter and makes responsible decisions when it does then the reverse, but who actually believed that cough?

 

[Skyring]

Subject: Abbott in government.
Content: Largely discussion about the role of small parties in the Senate

Pretty straightforward. If the election thread continues, it will be automatically offtopic as a matter of course. So I began this one and chose to highlight one of the new issues confronting the new government.

Can i make the obvious point that Tony Abbott in government has rhetorically flipped on two pretty big things compared to Tony Abbott in opposition already. 1. (relevant to the content above) is the need to do deals with small parties to get legislation passed (because, you know, actual governing involves that) and 2. Budget surpluses (remember when he promised one? He doesn't anymore - again, good government right now involves that).

I thought the big story was that he was leaning on the ALP to respect his mandate. I hadn't seen anything about dickering with the minors.

Nor have I seen anything about surpluses. Can you point to cites for both "backflips"? Not doubting, mind - I just haven't seen anything on either issue.

 

[paxman]

tony claimed to have a mandate to oppose the carbon tax after the last election. does labor now have a mandate to oppose direct action?

and will tony take bill on a man-date to sort it all out? good times, good times...

 

[medhead]

I thought the big story was that he was leaning on the ALP to respect his mandate. I hadn't seen anything about dickering with the minors.

Nor have I seen anything about surpluses. Can you point to cites for both "backflips"? Not doubting, mind - I just haven't seen anything on either issue.

He also leaned on the minor parties about his so called mandate. Unfortunately, that sort of bullying ignores the fact that Abbott blocked the ALPs mandate in the senate for 5 years. The evidence for the backflip is that Abbott is now demanding the alp support his policies. As many have told me in the election thread, it is not up to the opposition to vote in government policy.

 

[777]

I thought the big story was that he was leaning on the ALP to respect his mandate. I hadn't seen anything about dickering with the minors.

Nor have I seen anything about surpluses. Can you point to cites for both "backflips"? Not doubting, mind - I just haven't seen anything on either issue.

The debt/surplus issue is pretty straightforward. It was in the coalition's costings announced two days before the election that will run a deficit (ie. More debt! Fiscal crisis! Budget emergency) for the next two years so debt will go UP, not down, under an Abbott government.

As for dealing with minor parties I'm paraphrasing George Brandis from monday night's QandA ... to be fair, i'm happy to wait and see what happens with the new Senate and what deals and trade offs are made. New Senate doesn't sit til next year but it's an example of opposing from an alternate reality and having to govern in this one which will be TA's huge challenge.

 

[777]

On the ABC senate predictions which have not varied since late Saturday night, it seems The ALP will lose 6 seats, Lib/Nats 1 and the greens gain 1. There would be 8 independent/minor party senators.

It means the Australian government would need the support of just 6 of those 8 to pass/repeal legislation.

I think the reason they haven't changed is all the data isn't in yet. I'm sure it's broadly correct that the Senate will include a bunch of minor parties and often unexpected ones but the senate has a big butterfly effect as a small change down the line (mainly one candidate eliminating another early in the mix) can have massive consequences later. When we are talking about candidates being elected on a very small number of votes or knocking out each other based on numbers like 1950 v 1900 votes then it's well worth waiting for the below the line votes to come in before being too bold in predictions.

 

[serfty]

On the ABC senate predictions which have not varied since late Saturday night, it seems The ALP would l lose 6 seats, Lib/Nats 1 and the greens gain 1. There would be 8 independent/minor party senators.

Numbers come in at Lib/Nats 33, ALP 25, Greens 10 & others 8. A total of 39 is needed to pass, a lesser number is required to block.

It means the Australian government would need the support of just 6 of those 8 to pass/repeal legislation.

I am thinking the Australian Government will not have as tough a time getting legislation through the Senate as the last one did with the HOR.

1. Many of the eight appear to have general right wing views, &
2. Most of the eight would not be in a hurry to risk a double dissolution election - without such they are guaranteed a role until July 2020 - would they risk that?

 

[medhead]

As someone else expressed. I'm wondering if some of those 8 realise they've locked themselves in for 6 years. They might look forward to a DD after about 6 to 9 months.

I also want to renew my question about having drink driving charges dismissed. This is in the context of an Abbott advisor/staffer having drink driving charges dismissed this week, seemingly on the basis of being a good person. No suspension from driving. I'm just wondering how it can be right to have such charges dismissed after blowing 0.075?

Yes, I'm asking in a political context but only because I'm interested in how this occurred. I have a family member who blew a similar number and got the full works. They've had a few other problems since in work and such that could be linked to that suspension. So I'm just interested in the possibilities involved. Sorry to distract from the senate discussion.

 

[777]

1. Many of the eight appear to have general right wing views, &
2. Most of the eight would not be in a hurry to risk a double dissolution election - without such they are guaranteed a role until July 2020 - would they risk that?

I think this is basically true. The threat of a DD may encourage some (Palmer's team being the obvious ones) because the quota will be halved and they can pick up seats in a few more states if they're tracking ok. It won't bother Nick X (he may well get two quotas in SA under a DD) and i can't see the greens bending too much regardless. But the ones who "lucked it in" will have no incentive to trigger a DD and i suspect Abbott will not be afraid to threaten it. The mix of small parties v. "lucky" candidates will then be a big factor and still isn't really clear.

 

[777]

As someone else expressed. I'm wondering if some of those 8 realise they've locked themselves in for 6 years. They might look forward to a DD after about 6 to 9 months.

Some of them are very shrewd. Some others may not even realise that parliament is in Canberra.

 

[Pushka]

As someone else expressed. I'm wondering if some of those 8 realise they've locked themselves in for 6 years. They might look forward to a DD after about 6 to 9 months. .

That would be me medhead. Interesting that you only attribute things to me when you disagree with them.

As far as the drink driving, she plead guilty so she was prepared to do whatever the judge/magistrate required. Her record was impeccable, gainfully employed so unless you are accusing the judiciary of preferential treatment then the case is over really.

 

[777]

As far as the drink driving, she plead guilty so she was prepared to do whatever the judge/magistrate required. Her record was impeccable, gainfully employed so unless you are accusing the judiciary of preferential treatment then the case is over really.

I think she got preferential treatment but i don't think it's *partisan*. The reality is that those with access to good lawyers, money, and resources have the legal system heavily stacked in their favour. I think any professional person on that salary in such a senior position regardless of their politics probably would have gotten similar treatment. It's unfair but it's institutional not political.

 

[medhead]

That would be me medhead. Interesting that you only attribute things to me when you disagree with them.

Always blame incompetence over conspiracy. Fact is I knew I didn't say it and hence didn't want I claim it as my own work - plagiarism and all that. But I was far too lazy to go back and find the source using the iPhone app.

As far as the drink driving, she plead guilty so she was prepared to do whatever the judge/magistrate required. Her record was impeccable, gainfully employed so unless you are accusing the judiciary of preferential treatment then the case is over really.

That the source of my confusion. She plead guilty but the charges were dismissed, according to the newspaper. That basically means it never happened. No suspension from driving, nothing. The guilty means nothing as there were no charges. The alternative for a professional is to plead guilty, take the 3 month suspension and have no conviction.

While I asking this in a political context I'm not making any accusations. Just wondering how having the charges dismissed and hence absolutely no penalty can occur vs penalty with no conviction.

I think she got preferential treatment but i don't think it's *partisan*. The reality is that those with access to good lawyers, money, and resources have the legal system heavily stacked in their favour. I think any professional person on that salary in such a senior position regardless of their politics probably would have gotten similar treatment. It's unfair but it's institutional not political.

As above I don't think there was political shenanigans but there is a political context. There is also the vast difference between no conviction and charges dismissed. I have a no conviction event but I would have loved to have the police charge dismissed entirely.

 

[Pushka]

Always blame incompetence over conspiracy. Fact is I knew I didn't say it and hence didn't want I claim it as my own work - plagiarism and all that. But I was far too lazy to go back and find the source using the iPhone app.



That the source of my confusion. She plead guilty but the charges were dismissed, according to the newspaper. That basically means it never happened. No suspension from driving, nothing. The guilty means nothing as there were no charges. The alternative for a professional is to plead guilty, take the 3 month suspension and have no conviction.

While I asking this in a political context I'm not making any accusations. Just wondering how having the charges dismissed and hence absolutely no penalty can occur vs penalty with no conviction.



As above I don't think there was political shenanigans but there is a political context. There is also the vast difference between no conviction and charges dismissed. I have a no conviction event but I would have loved to have the police charge dismissed entirely.

Ah. Do you have an iPhone btw? You didn't need to requote but you seem well versed usually in dragging out things I post weeks ago. Must be the stress of a coalition government getting to you.

By the way, if there are no charges then you can't plead guilty. You don't even go to court. The charges were later dismissed but they did exist.

 

[Princess Fiona]

As someone else expressed. I'm wondering if some of those 8 realise they've locked themselves in for 6 years. They might look forward to a DD after about 6 to 9 months.

I also want to renew my question about having drink driving charges dismissed. This is in the context of an Abbott advisor/staffer having drink driving charges dismissed this week, seemingly on the basis of being a good person. No suspension from driving. I'm just wondering how it can be right to have such charges dismissed after blowing 0.075?

Yes, I'm asking in a political context but only because I'm interested in how this occurred. I have a family member who blew a similar number and got the full works. They've had a few other problems since in work and such that could be linked to that suspension. So I'm just interested in the possibilities involved. Sorry to distract from the senate discussion.

Peta Credlin may have had charges dismissed under a "Section 17"
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/feder...s-guilty-to-drink-driving-20130724-2qiev.html

Last paragraph is the relevant part