Australian Politics thread [merged]

[1965]

1965 please explain why Gillard won't take her Carbon tax to an election like Howard did when he changed his mind about the GST? If this is as good as policy as she is saying it will be Im sure people will vote for it like they did on the GST.

More made up crap.

Howard had no choice but to go to an election (his three years were up)

The next election Gillard has to call is not for another two years.

[tiger101]

1965 please explain why Gillard won't take her Carbon tax to an election like Howard did when he changed his mind about the GST? If this is as good as policy as she is saying it will be Im sure people will vote for it like they did on the GST.

More made up crap.

Howard had no choice but to go to an election (his three years were up)

The next election Gillard has to call is not for another two years.

He could of implemented it through his first term but he choose to actually bring forward the election and give people a choice.

1965 Im not going to get bogged down in a debate with you. The polls show common voters are not in favour of this tax or ALP. So for someone to advocate for Gillard and this tax it kind of makes me feel that your an ALP member or life long support so debating isn't going to change your opinion no matter what the facts are.

[1965]

He could of implemented it through his first term but he choose to actually bring forward the election and give people a choice.

1965 Im not going to get bogged down in a debate with you. The polls show common voters are not in favour of this tax or ALP. So for someone to advocate for Gillard and this tax it kind of makes me feel that your an ALP member or life long support so debating isn't going to change your opinion no matter what the facts are.

True but the next election is two years away.

The carbon tax will be a non-issue by then.

 

And I am a swinging voter, always have been, always will be.

I just hate the anti-everything, destroy parliament attitude from the Libs at the moment. It's all just reeks of desperation to force an election so they can gain power at any cost. Like it or not this hung parliament is with us for another two years. And after all of their negativity they had the nerve to say they expected Labor to vote with a future Abbott government to repeal the carbon tax laws.

 

[tiger101]

Even Richo ALP powerbroker has admitted ALP won't win the next election.
If Abbott is that bad you say it just reflects even worse on ALP it shows how truly bad they are if they can't be more favoured then Liberals.

[1965]

Even Richo ALP powerbroker has admitted ALP won't win the next election.
If Abbott is that bad you say it just reflects even worse on ALP it shows how truly bad they are if they can't be more favoured then Liberals.

Do you mean the former ALP powerbroker Graham Richardson now current bitter and twisted commentator?

And it shows how gullible the masses are that blindly believe the lies Abbott has been telling.

Only a matter of time before the Libs implode. There are lots of Lib backbenchers that don't like what's going on but are prepared to bide their time.

[tiger101]

Richardson has even admitted he was a link man between the fractions on the down fall of Rudd.
His only bitter because he took credit for having played a role in the down fall and its now all imploded on there face's with her incompetence.

[1965]

Richardson has even admitted he was a link man between the fractions on the down fall of Rudd.
His only bitter because he took credit for having played a role in the down fall and its now all imploded on there face's with her incompetence.

Same old lines are a good fall back when you can't debate a point.

 

[tiger101]

My point has always been Gillard should take the Carbon tax to an election like Howard did when he changed his mind on wanting a GST.
I agree with Richo I can't see them winning at the next election. I also can't see a point if they block repealing the tax in the senate. If they lose this election the quicker they accept policy failure the quicker they can move on and be an alternative.
Now will Gillard be dumped or be told to step down before next election I believe there is a high possibility of happening.
Her word is shot and would be toxic on a campaign trail. They need someone to come in that could save them from being annihilated. 

[1965]

My point has always been Gillard should take the Carbon tax to an election like Howard did when he changed his mind on wanting a GST.

Once again you are being misleading, Howard didn't take the GST to an election. The election fell due before he could legislate.

I agree with Richo I can't see them winning at the next election. I also can't see a point if they block repealing the tax in the senate. If they lose this election the quicker they accept policy failure the quicker they can move on and be an alternative.

So why is Abbott currently doing exactly the same thing that you don't want Labor to do after the next election?

Now will Gillard be dumped or be told to step down before next election I believe there is a high possibility of happening.
Her word is shot and would be toxic on a campaign trail. They need someone to come in that could save them from being annihilated.

Ahhh "toxic" another Abbott cliche.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
 

[tiger101]

Once again you are being misleading, Howard didn't take the GST to an election. The election fell due before he could legislate.

Check the facts 1965 he brang the election forward and he could of introduced the GST any time in his first term but he waited till the election to seek a mandate.

[WilliamPowell]

1965 please explain why Gillard won't take her Carbon tax to an election like Howard did when he changed his mind about the GST? If this is as good as policy as she is saying it will be Im sure people will vote for it like they did on the GST.

tiger101, when Howard became leader he said the GST was dead, would never happen.

Then they were in a position to not lose an election he rolled it out. Yes he went to the polls on it but the poll he faced was one he was never going to lose.... Facts are he lied to the public he said it would never happen but he changed his mind and in it came.

And BTW never forget that the only way they got the GST through the senate was by doing a deal with the Democrats who held the balance of power back then. Sound familiar 

Howard also promised he & his govt would not abuse the power they had when the controlled both houses. Sadly he lied on that one when he implemented Workchoices, like Gillard he didn't have the courage to go to an election over it ... he snuck it through the back door but I suppose that's OK.... 

The other thing I find amusing in this debate is back 2007 Rudd was elected on a number of election promises. One of which was a ETS.

In 2007 the ALP won with a clear majority, a mandate I think some like to call it. Everyone keeps sooking that the current Govt doesn't have a mandate to bring in a Carbon Tax but forget that when they had a clear mandate they were not allowed to use that mandate to bring in an ETS because of the then opposition's objections (after they knifed their leader) and having the votes in the senate .... Mandates mean very little in politics sometimes 

[tiger101]

tiger101, when Howard became leader he said the GST was dead, would never happen.

Then they were in a position to not lose an election he rolled it out. Yes he went to the polls on it but the poll he faced was one he was never going to lose.... Facts are he lied to the public he said it would never happen but he changed his mind and in it came.

Fact is he changed his mind and took it to an election and gave people a vote and he won.
You can spin it anyway you want but the fact stands he took it to an election before implemented it.

Howard also promised he & his govt would not abuse the power they had when the controlled both houses. Sadly he lied on that one when he implemented Workchoices, like Gillard he didn't have the courage to go to an election over it ... he snuck it through the back door but I suppose that's OK.... 

You are correct he didn't tell the public his policy before implementing it but look how that turned out.
Not a good sign to use as an example.

The other thing I find amusing in this debate is back 2007 Rudd was elected on a number of election promises. One of which was a ETS.

In 2007 the ALP won with a clear majority, a mandate I think some like to call it. Everyone keeps sooking that the current Govt doesn't have a mandate to bring in a Carbon Tax but forget that when they had a clear mandate they were not allowed to use that mandate to bring in an ETS because of the then opposition's objections (after they knifed their leader) and having the votes in the senate .... Mandates mean very little in politics sometimes 

Yes Rudd won a mandate and Gillard could claim it to still be a mandate if she didn't change the party policy in the campaign and promise no carbon tax.
So as she stated the ALP policy for a future government if they won was no carbon tax but once she was declared prime minister  she quickly ran off and appeared in a public conference with the greens and said we now will have a carbon tax.

[mightytiges]

Fact is he changed his mind and took it to an election and gave people a vote and he won.
You can spin it anyway you want but the fact stands he took it to an election before implemented it.

Never ever means never ever. Whether Howard took it to a subsequent election or not later on is irrelevant. He told porkies before the 1996 election to get into office.

Yes Rudd won a mandate and Gillard could claim it to still be a mandate if she didn't change the party policy in the campaign and promise no carbon tax.
So as she stated the ALP policy for a future government if they won was no carbon tax but once she was declared prime minister  she quickly ran off and appeared in a public conference with the greens and said we now will have a carbon tax.

The Libs as well as Labor supported introducing an ETS going into the 2007 election. Rudd and Turnbull were in agreement on an ETS and would've made the few Greens and the independents who held the balance of power in the Senate back then irrelevant but the Libs broke their 2007 election promise first once Abbott became leader. All pollies and parties tell fibs for political gain. With Labor now as a minority government, the Libs opposing everything including some of their own policies under Abbott and the Greens having sole balance of power in the Senate, circumstances have changed. A temporary 3-year carbon tax, which will be gone by the election after the 2013 one, was required to get to an ETS. No real difference to Howard having to modify and compromise on his GST plans to get Meg Lees and the Democrats to allow it through the Senate.

In any case Abbott's policies are starting to unravel as reality doesn't care much for blind ideology and negativity. First wanting to repeal the carbon tax is getting business very concerned as the uncertainty he plans to create will drive up electricity prices with no compensation to counter it while the Navy has torpedoed his asylum seeker plans of turning the boats around to Indonesia who don't want them - it's not 2001 anymore Tony! Of course Phoney Tony still thinks he knows more than expert scientists, economists and even the Australia Navy  . 

[1965]

A very intersting article about the reality of the bed Tony A is making for himself.

Abbott cooks up a climate pickle

by: Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor
From:The Australian
October 21, 201112:00AM

TONY Abbott's core promise to rescind the carbon tax is the second issue creating a policy and political problem for him as a result of behaving like a government in exile and doing everything possible to force an early election. That determination to destroy the Gillard government is costing the Coalition credibility as an alternative government, which has the power to erode its overwhelming electoral support.

and

After obstructing and frustrating Labor policy in an effort to force an early election, the argument that a Coalition victory would give Labor a moral imperative to support the end of the tax is a bit of a stretch. The argument that it is not the job of the opposition to help implement government policy is as valid for the ALP as it is for the Coalition.

full article at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/abbott-cooks-up-a-climate-pickle/story-e6frgd0x-1226172246756

[1965]

More negativity from Tony A.

I wonder how many voters have experienced the pain of living with a problem gambler.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/abbott-predicts-pokies-repeal/3600604

Abbott talks up opposition to pokies reform

By Michael Edwards and staff
Updated October 26, 2011 09:59:57

Mr Abbott told a rally of more than 1,000 people at the Campbelltown RSL in south-western Sydney last night that problem gambling was an individual issue which can be dealt with by counselling.

He described the pre-commitment legislation as bad law that could not be supported by any sensible party.

"When this legislation comes before the Parliament I predict that we will oppose it," he said.

"And if this legislation is passed by the Parliament and if we then subsequently form a government, I predict we will rescind it. That's what I predict."