Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would only take legislation to make it so, the same way particular drugs are made arbitrarily illegal.

And that can apply to everything!
Uh huh. So how much influence do you think the Greens had on the Carbon Tax legislation ? It seems to be a pretty common theme in conservative circles it's their fault.

If you don't understand what the word "like" means, you shouldn't use it.

Well, medhead would say the Carbon Tax only came about only because of the minority government, in which the Greens were complicit in forming. Unless Gillard really was lying of course.
 
Uh huh. So how much influence do you think the Greens had on the Carbon Tax legislation ? It seems to be a pretty common theme in conservative circles it's their fault.

If you don't understand what the word "like" means, you shouldn't use it.

If you wish to talk in specifics, then yes, due to a hung parliament, the Labor government lost all credibility by selling out to a bunch of self-interested MPs, including The Greens with preference deals and a number of independents who manipulated the situation for self interested cash splashes for their electorates. On the primary vote, the coalition won the last election by a considerable margin, however the system doesn't work that way.

The Greens can be proud of re-crafting and supporting the least effective, most expensive and most unpopular piece of policy in Australian history, which is completely out of step with the rest of the world, and does nothing to effect the global temperature - which is (correction - was - when this idea was popular) apparently the 'greatest moral challenge of our time'.

The Greens policy platform resembles far-left communism, proven so effective in other parts of the world.

To suggest making the sale of coal illegal is economic terrorism, but then again, the greens did come out and support that idiot who fraudulently sent the fake bank media release about Whitehaven which caused a plummeting of the share price affecting countless investors including many super fund holders. That's some highly responsible behavior of elected MPs right there.

Just so you understand that I understand what the work 'like' means, I don't 'like' when a fringe political party exerts undue influence on the national agenda.
 
What concerns me most lately is that the electorate are so stupid that they think:
a) they are voting for Kevin Rudd, and
b) putting a different clown out the front suddenly makes a better circus
 
Time for some real figures.
In 2011 China mined 3471 million tonnes of coal.All of it for domestic consumption.
Australia mined 414 million tonnes.
China was the recipient of 12.7% of our thermal coal exports in 2011 and 8.1% of the metallurgical coal exports.All up about 40 million tonnes.That is about 1% of that produced in China.Even if we stopped all coal exports to China it would make diddely squat difference to China's CO2 emissions.

coal mining, coal production - World Coal Association

http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/australias-coal-and-iron-ore-exports-2001-to-2011.pdf
 
What concerns me most lately is that the electorate are so stupid that they think:
a) they are voting for Kevin Rudd, and
b) putting a different clown out the front suddenly makes a better circus

A Winston Churchill quote-"you can never underestimate the intelligence of the electorate."
 
And that can apply to everything!
Yes. That was kind of my point.

Well, medhead would say the Carbon Tax only came about only because of the minority government, in which the Greens were complicit in forming. Unless Gillard really was lying of course.
Gillard promised a carbon pricing scheme, and delivered one.
 
If you wish to talk in specifics, then yes, due to a hung parliament, the Labor government lost all credibility by selling out to a bunch of self-interested MPs, including The Greens with preference deals and a number of independents who manipulated the situation for self interested cash splashes for their electorates.
So the Greens _have_ crafted and passed legislation ?


On the primary vote, the coalition won the last election by a considerable margin, however the system doesn't work that way.
It always makes me laugh how Labor working with the Greens is a "minority Government", but the Liberals working with the Nationals is a "coalition".


The Greens can be proud of re-crafting and supporting the least effective, most expensive and most unpopular piece of policy in Australian history, which is completely out of step with the rest of the world, and does nothing to effect the global temperature - which is (correction - was - when this idea was popular) apparently the 'greatest moral challenge of our time'.
If the legislation is so ineffective, why is changing it so imperative ?


The Greens policy platform resembles far-left communism, proven so effective in other parts of the world.
The Greens policy platform is not even vaguely close to "far-left communism", and if you think otherwise you're off in la-la land.


To suggest making the sale of coal illegal is economic terrorism, but then again, the greens did come out and support that idiot who fraudulently sent the fake bank media release about Whitehaven which caused a plummeting of the share price affecting countless investors including many super fund holders. That's some highly responsible behavior of elected MPs right there.
I think you mean "speculators and gamblers". "Investors" don't panic-sell because of a fraudulent press release.


Just so you understand that I understand what the work 'like' means, I don't 'like' when a fringe political party exerts undue influence on the national agenda.
The Greens represent ~10% of the vote but have considerably less than 10% of the seats in the lower house. If anything, they are are under-represented.
 
Yet the Greens can decide the fate of 100% of the bills in the Senate.
The Greens hold 9 seats in the Senate (aside: a much more representative quantity). That does not appear to give them a majority by my counting.
 
Liberals and Labor seats combined total 55.

Not good with figures then.
Green + ALP=majority.
Green + Coalition=majority.

But OK Green + independent/DLP does not = majority so in practice they only control the passage of 99.9% of bills.
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Yet the Greens can decide the fate of 100% of the bills in the Senate.

That is not correct. For the greens to decide the fate of 100% of bills would mean that the coalition would have to oppose 100% of bills.

It is true to say that the Greens can decide the fate of bills that the coalition opposes.
 
[Qualification]
... should liberal and labour disagree ...​
[/Qualification]

Which is not the case with most bills anyway..

I quite like that the senate requires the agreement of at least two parties to pass a bill, better than any one party having a majority. (even if that other party is very left leaning)
 
Which is not the case with most bills anyway..

I quite like that the senate requires the agreement of at least two parties to pass a bill, better than any one party having a majority. (even if that other party is very left leaning)

Very true. They do say 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

The contention is in the House of Reps anyway. The senate are glorified rubber stampers, which is why most sail through unchallenged.

On another note, since when is good government measured by the amount of legislation passed? Good governments should be measured on the quality and outcome of the legislation.
 
Not good with figures then.
Apparently better than you though:

But OK Green + independent/DLP does not = majority so in practice they only control the passage of 99.9% of bills.
Now, I'm interested in this implication that only "0.1%" of bills that pass (or are rejected by) the senate, do so with a large degree of unanimity (ie: that Liberals and Labor agree on). Do you have any _actual_ numbers, or are you just making stuff up to suit your rhetoric ?
 
Apparently better than you though:


Now, I'm interested in this implication that only "0.1%" of bills that pass (or are rejected by) the senate, do so with a large degree of unanimity (ie: that Liberals and Labor agree on). Do you have any _actual_ numbers, or are you just making stuff up to suit your rhetoric ?

Well you can tell me how many bills went against the wishes of the Greens.
The 0.1% figures where implying that was the percentage of bills that went against the Greens opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top