Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

The GG would have zero basis to do anything.

The people already decided. They elected their representatives, and those representatives chose a Prime Minister, precisely as they are supposed to do. That's how the system here works.

No. The Governor-General chooses the Prime Minister. 1975 is a recent case, but there are others. The 2nd Parliament is an excellent example, where there were three groupings, none of them with a majority. Free Trade, Labor and Protectionist all had a go. At one stage PM Reid advised an election but the Governor-General called up another leader and gave him a run.

Assuming that Gillard is pushed out next week - and it would only take another bad poll to spark that - the confidence of the Reps would be an unknown quantity. Especially if the move were carefully timed so as occur before parliament gets a chance to vote on a motion.

The Governor-General could well refuse to commission the ALP leader unless they advised an early election, on the grounds that with no more sitting days scheduled before the proposed election date in September there would be no chance to test confidence.

As for the supposed ALP connections, I think the Governor-General would act in an impartial manner. She'd look at the circumstances and the good of the nation ahead of any partisan views. IMHO, based on her behaviour so far.

 

[Deleted member]

And given her familial connections would have additional scrutiny on her every move.

 

[Skyring]

And given her familial connections would have additional scrutiny on her every move.

She's no Lannister.

 

[drsmithy]

With all due respect, what an utter bullsh!t line....

There are few aspects of gender equality religions attack more than women's access to birth control.

 

[drsmithy]

Ahh, just what sort of compulsion were you imagining?

The tongue-in-cheek kind.

However, a little "Westminster for dummies" pamphlet going out the week or two before the election would be a good start.

Of course, neither of the two major parties would have a bar of it, since a) their leaders revel in the egoism of American-esque politics and b) it might mean representatives actually have to start representing, rather than just parroting the party line and collecting their pensions.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to remind us how awful non-party-approved political representation is.

 

[drsmithy]

Julia Gillard votes against marriage equality.

That's because Julia Gillard is doing the bidding of the people who put her where she is.

And if you are talking opportunistic populism, remember that big Rooty Hill circus a while back?

Not quite sure how that's relevant. I am not professing support for either Gillard, or the current Labor party.

Tony Abbot is not a conviction politician. He's not even a pragmatist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention.

In the end, marriage equality is up to the voters.

It shouldn't be. It's ultimately an issue of the basic right to equality before the law.

If it's a big enough issue with majority support, it'll get up. So far we are just seeing - from both sides of politics - half-hearted gestures and posturing. Neither has their heart in it. Tony Abbott, on personal views, fair enough. Julia Gillard, she obviously doesn't have a commitment to marriage as an institution, but she would jump on a chance for a good headline and a bounce in the polls. She's not seeing marriage equality as a winner, otherwise she'd be all over it.

Much like voluntary euthanasia, no-one seriously questions majority public support for marriage equality today. That it's still being treated as controversial by politicians reaffirms my point about religious interference in our ostensibly secular society.

 

[eastwest101]

Tony Abbot is not a conviction politician. He's not even a pragmatist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention.

So you are saying that has no convictions but is also incapable of pragmatism? Which one is it? And if you don't agree with your own statement then you make suggestions about the intelligence of anyone who dosen't agree with your own point of view? Uni student politics just called - they want their debating tactics back please......

It shouldn't be. It's ultimately an issue of the basic right to equality before the law.

Whilst I support marrige equality, you had better take your own advice on learning civics, laws give rights, and they are made by federal and state parliments, from elected members, and elected by whom? Thats right - the voting public.

 

[eastwest101]

Not quite sure how that's relevant. I am not professing support for either Gillard, or the current Labor party.

You brought up the subject of "opportunistic populism", and when Skyring points to the Rooty Hill stuff the subject is declared suddenly irrelevant. As another "irrelevant" example - how about the Brendan O'Connor's assertions about the alleged abuse of the 457 Visa system? Do you agree with his statements about that?

 

[medhead]

Actually is fairer to say laws protect rights.

And I'm sorry but visiting an area that does not understand what you stand for, is not opportunistic populism. What turned it into a circus is tony Abbott deciding to turn up at the same time. I guess he wasn't engaged in opportunistic populism when he went to rooty hill at all?

 

[drsmithy]

So you are saying that has no convictions but is also incapable of pragmatism? Which one is it?

He's not a conviction politician. He won't try and force an issue he knows is unpopular because he thinks it's right.
He's not a pragmatist. He won't leave something that's working be if there political mileage to be made out of it.

He's a populist. He'll go wherever the wind blows.

Whilst I support marrige equality, you had better take your own advice on learning civics, laws give rights, and they are made by federal and state parliments, from elected members, and elected by whom? Thats right - the voting public.

Maybe you should consider the difference in meaning between the words "shouldn't" and "isn't".

 

[drsmithy]

You brought up the subject of "opportunistic populism", and when Skyring points to the Rooty Hill stuff the subject is declared suddenly irrelevant.

How is Julia Gillard's behaviour relevant to a discussion about Tony Abbot ?

As another "irrelevant" example - how about the Brendan O'Connor's assertions about the alleged abuse of the 457 Visa system? Do you agree with his statements about that?

You'll need to be a bit more specific.

 

[joeymelb]

How is Julia Gillard's behaviour relevant to a discussion about Tony Abbot ?

Easy, all Gillard's blunders are all Tony Abbott's fault because he is a man after all. Most of married men - especially me - would know that SHE is always right. My default answer is always "Yes Dear, it is purely my fault dear... I am sorry dear."

Of course, when birthday comes up, wise man would ask "What would you like for your birthday?" the wife would answer "No present for me, a quiet day with you is enough." Should I follow thru the "No Present" rule, I would be blamed for "unthoughtful", "ungrateful", "unappreciative" and of course mean!! (She would unlease the Kraken aka Mother-In-Law + Daughters and her Women-For-Her armed force...)

For me, I think Gillard is the same... "No never means No" especially her "No Carbon Tax", and of course none of those were ever her fault.

 

[Skyring]

And I'm sorry but visiting an area that does not understand what you stand for, is not opportunistic populism.

I live in Canberra, Julia Gillard visits here regularly, and I don't understand what she stands for.

What the hell does she stand for?

Apart from gaining and holding power, and she's a soulmate with Clive Palmer on that one.

 

[medhead]

?

Apart from gaining and holding power, and she's a soulmate with Clive Palmer on that one.

That's a pathetic and meaningless gibe rolled out by people who seem to ignore the reality of minority government. She had a choice stand by her position and do nothing or change positions to achieve her legislative program as best possible. If only you had a single example to back up such a contemptible opinion.


In any case, she must also be a soul mate with Abbott if your opinion were correct.

 

[casanovawa]

He's not a conviction politician. He won't try and force an issue he knows is unpopular because he thinks it's right.
He's not a pragmatist. He won't leave something that's working be if there political mileage to be made out of it.

He's a populist. He'll go wherever the wind blows.

Funny how your type is sh*tting bricks about his impending assault on our abortion laws and then you say he isn't a conviction politician... So he'll do that will he because of the massive bounce in the polls will he???

If he isn't driven by conviction, why are you all coughping on about the upcoming domination of public policy in Australia by his religious views??? I guess that will be poll driven as well will it???

Or are you just making this up as you go along???

 

[Skyring]

That's a pathetic and meaningless gibe rolled out by people who seem to ignore the reality of minority government. She had a choice stand by her position and do nothing or change positions to achieve her legislative program as best possible. If only you had a single example to back up such a contemptible opinion.

It's nothing to do with minority government. She spent her early career as a darling of the Left and she's way over the other side now.

It's a commonplace opinion piece in the weekend papers - Julia Gillard, just what does she stand for? - and it's a fair question. Honestly, I have no idea. Apart from getting and holding power. She will say or do anything to that end.

Which, ironically enough, is why she is so disliked. She comes across as so false and stage-managed. Everything planned and crafted by a team of staffers. So many catchphrases per speech, no cameras for this event, no journalists for this one. Everything plastic.

We very rarely see "the real Julia" - we know when we do because suddenly she's genuine and authentic: a totally different person. Why isn't she like that all the time?

 

[Moody]

I live in Canberra, Julia Gillard visits here regularly, and I don't understand what she stands for.

What the hell does she stand for?

Apart from gaining and holding power, and she's a soulmate with Clive Palmer on that one.

I worry about you, Skyring. You seem to live in a sort of Boltian universe of anti-facts.

Judging by policies announced and legislation passed by the current parliament, I would say she stands for :-

- Putting a price on pollution and investing the income on renewable technologies and compensation for low-income earners
- Enacting an admittidly lame mining tax to reduce the super-profits on australian resources that were mostly going overseas
- Acting on the Gonski report to stop the relative decline in education standards, particularly amongst the most disadvantaged
- Failing miserably to pass media reforms that weren't even as harsh as the recent UK laws. (Murdoch wins again)
- Introducing the NDIS, including a Medicare levy hike to pay for it
- Revising the whole funding model for Health - signed off by all States and Territories
- Breaking the Telstra monopoly to accelerate the NBN rollout
- Introducing paid parental leave
- ..... and a lazy 500 other pieces of legislation

Try to keep up!

 

[joeymelb]

I worry about you, Skyring. You seem to live in a sort of Boltian universe of anti-facts.

Judging by policies announced and legislation passed by the current parliament, I would say she stands for :-

- Putting a price on pollution and investing the income on renewable technologies and compensation for low-income earners
- Enacting an admittidly lame mining tax to reduce the super-profits on australian resources that were mostly going overseas
- Acting on the Gonski report to stop the relative decline in education standards, particularly amongst the most disadvantaged
- Failing miserably to pass media reforms that weren't even as harsh as the recent UK laws. (Murdoch wins again)
- Introducing the NDIS, including a Medicare levy hike to pay for it
- Revising the whole funding model for Health - signed off by all States and Territories
- Breaking the Telstra monopoly to accelerate the NBN rollout
- Introducing paid parental leave
- ..... and a lazy 500 other pieces of legislation

Try to keep up!

Suddenly, my mind wondered to a Song called Money Kept Rolling in and out (Evita).

All the money from overspend has to come from borrowing. In my household, we do not borrow to consume. We borrow to invest on Asset to grow the economic pie and safeguard our future. NBN could/should be an Asset worth borrowing for, but no cost/benefit analysis were done (at least I couldn't find it on google) to justify it. NDIS, Gonski, BER, Pink Batts, cash handout, Flooding in of Welfare dependent boat people... those are pure expenditures in my opinion.

In small micro-economic level, I will not spend the money I don't already earn. Plus, I do not commit to future expenditure without knowing fully what my actual earning will be. As a salary earner, I base my future expenditure on my base earning not earning plus bonus, overtime and cloud-in-the-sky figures.

For the money wasted on Pink Batts and cash handouts, new roads could be built to boost employment... (just some simple logic).

Snowy Mountain Project, Great Ocean Road and Yarra Bend Drive (in Victoria near GE Money HQ) was recession era projects to boost employment and economy - it was a massive expenditure and definitely an asset which is reaping revenue today. We had GFC and all the spending just went into puff of smoke.

 

[Skyring]

Judging by policies announced and legislation passed by the current parliament, I would say she stands for :-

Internet spying, apparently.

You know, that's the thing. With most people, regular folk like you and I, you get an idea of what they stand for from just talking with them. Some things press their buttons, some don't. After a few years, you can be pretty sure of where they stand on a given issue.

Apparently that's not the case with Julia Gillard. What she stands for is a list of legislation!

What she stands for on asylum seekers is not a long-held belief, it seems. Not a firm principle. You know, once upon a time, she would have told us that excising the whole of the Australian mainland from the Australian migration zone wasn't a thing she would ever stand for. Quite the reverse, in fact.

But there it is.

No, Moody, you can't say what you think she stands for and say that this equates to my understanding. You might be more accepting of her words at face value than I. I've been listening very carefully to her for several years and I honestly don't know what she stands for.

Except, well, I know she cares a lot about education, and I know she wants to get her hands on young Australians as early and as much as possible. She must have been trained by Jesuits.

 

[drsmithy]

Funny how your type is sh*tting bricks about his impending assault on our abortion laws and then you say he isn't a conviction politician... So he'll do that will he because of the massive bounce in the polls will he???

He'll do it as a sop to his conservative Christian voting block.

Nothing so major as trying to ban abortion, of course, just some fiddling around the edges to make it less accessible to those undesirables like the unmarried or poor.

If he isn't driven by conviction, why are you all coughping on about the upcoming domination of public policy in Australia by his religious views??? I guess that will be poll driven as well will it???

It's not just his religious views, it's the religious views of the conservative christian voting block he depends on.