- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Posts
- 28,166
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Star Alliance
- Silver
Apologies for the multiple posts ... have been out of action for the last day and have time to kill in a LAX lounge.
Oh, you never know.
I agree with the last point :shock: but under the Westminster system, a 'mandate' can only be claimed or exercised by the party or coalition that forms government. In the last Parliament, we had Jacki Lambe (apologies, on behalf of Tasmania) actually claiming a "mandate" to have her policies implemented (thins in between musing what certain physical characteristics she wanted in her men), the Greens a mandate to implement theirs etc. Now we have Bill Shorten claiming a mandate fir Labor's policies. It's ridiculous. The elected non-government parliamentarians have the right and duty to pursue their policies and ideas on behalf of their constituents, but they have no 'mandate' to have them implemented. Sure, the Senate doesn't have to allow the government to exercise its mandate, but the opposition doesn't have a mandate to implement their policies by amending the government's legislation.
Well, IMHO, anyway.
Not ramble on too much, I've cut a bit of your post.<snip>
Couple of points to note: (not need to reply)
<snip>.
Oh, you never know.
Not ramble on too much, I've cut a bit of your post.<snip>
Couple of points to note: (not need to reply)
The current marriage situation was created by PM Howard's changes to the marriage act.
The republic referendum asked the wrong question (for whatever reason) I thought it was always going to fail. But at least it was held concurrent with a general election.
I'm not sure there is any requirement for the government to fund advertising for either case. I imagine the current government will fund some "no" advertising.
Mandate - is an over abused word. No government has a mandate to do whatever they want. Plenty of examples of a general policy being taken to an election by a party that then forms government but without a senate majority. That party then wrong claims they must implement policy X precisely according they their preferred model, because they have a mandate. The problem is that while the voters have supported X policy, they have also imposed a senate that will review and potentially change that policy when presented in legislation. The public have given the senate a mandate as the house of review, in that case. The senate isn't a rubber stamp to government and the voters have given it the ability to review decisions. That sets limitations on claiming a mandate.
As I said mandate is an abused word.
I agree with the last point :shock: but under the Westminster system, a 'mandate' can only be claimed or exercised by the party or coalition that forms government. In the last Parliament, we had Jacki Lambe (apologies, on behalf of Tasmania) actually claiming a "mandate" to have her policies implemented (thins in between musing what certain physical characteristics she wanted in her men), the Greens a mandate to implement theirs etc. Now we have Bill Shorten claiming a mandate fir Labor's policies. It's ridiculous. The elected non-government parliamentarians have the right and duty to pursue their policies and ideas on behalf of their constituents, but they have no 'mandate' to have them implemented. Sure, the Senate doesn't have to allow the government to exercise its mandate, but the opposition doesn't have a mandate to implement their policies by amending the government's legislation.
Well, IMHO, anyway.