If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents?

Better than losing your political career?

It would wedge the Liberals - forcing them to introduce very poor policy which they can not afford or to look like idiots when they keep the fixed price in place anyway.

I think you need to re-read your OP there... you probably meant Labor, not coalition.

If you did then I certainly agree with you. All this drivel about "mandate" is for lazy retards who don't want to work to get legislation through.

Gist wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

I think you need to re-read your OP there... you probably meant Labor, not coalition. If you did then I certainly agree with you. All this drivel about "mandate" is for lazy retards who don't want to work to get legislation through.

It wasn't a typo, but it probably wasn't the best use of grammar. You're right, it does look I meant the Coalition in "they". I will change, thanks for pointing it out. And you're also right, Labor would have a mandate FOR the carbon tax, the conservatives are too daft to understand.

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents?

Please provide fact instead of green commie induendo

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

...Labor would have a mandate FOR the carbon tax, the conservatives are too daft to understand.

Dharling, would you like to think about that word mandate before you slot it in your statement.

If the coalition lose the next election, which is looking more likely by the day, this means they must allow a conscious vote on marriage equality.

If not, then they have no grounds to demand anything of any other party.

Well if it turns out a land slide victory for the Libs then Labor would have to remove support for the carbon tax to save face, unless they want another long period of not winning elections. but if the Libs do have a land slide victory then they will not need Labors support.

Given the simple fact that Abbotts climate change policy is more expensive and more of a burden on taxpayers without any compensation Aussies had better hope the carbon price is here to stay.

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents?

First of all, Labor has NO mandate to introduce the carbon tax because neither of the major parties acquired enough votes to hold a majority in Parliament. Secondly, the only reason the ALP won so many votes is because of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

Thirdly, you must be living in an alternate dimension if you honestly believe that it is improbable that the Coalition will win the next election given that every single poll to date has shown the Coalition winning the next election easily.

____ wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

If the coalition lose the next election, which is looking more likely by the day, this means they must allow a conscious vote on marriage equality. If not, then they have no grounds to demand anything of any other party.

I see you're smoking/drinking the same stuff as TheGreenLight...

Labor should not repeal the carbon tax. It is the right thing to do,screw the imbeciles that want it repealed, most are incapable of understanding logic.

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41pm: I think you need to re-read your OP there... you probably meant Labor, not coalition. If you did then I certainly agree with you. All this drivel about "mandate" is for lazy retards who don't want to work to get legislation through. It wasn't a typo, but it probably wasn't the best use of grammar. You're right, it does look I meant the Coalition in "they". I will change, thanks for pointing it out. And you're also right, Labor would have a mandate FOR the carbon tax, the conservatives are too daft to understand.

so if labor win the next election they would have a mandate for the carbon tax (meaning libs shoudl support it) but it the libs win they wont have a mandate to repeal it and labor shouldnt feel compelled to support the repeal??

do I really have to explain just how breathtakingly hypocritical that is?

I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal.

honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably?

skippy. wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:23am:

Labor should not repeal the carbon tax. It is the right thing to do,screw the imbeciles that want it repealed, most are incapable of understanding logic.

So, basically, screw the majority and democracy, and keep the carbon tax, because YOU want it, skip?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably?

So because that bunch of buffoons you love so much thought it was right to give the finger to the people who voted for them by voting against what they'd promised at the election once they won their seats YOU think that that somehow places a burden on everyone else to do similar? Do you have any idea how stupid that argument is?

john_g wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 8:23am: Labor should not repeal the carbon tax. It is the right thing to do,screw the imbeciles that want it repealed, most are incapable of understanding logic. So, basically, screw the majority and democracy, and keep the carbon tax, because YOU want it, skip?

No, that is our democracy. Voting the way you said you would vote at the election. Actually representing the people who voted FOR you by doing what you PROMISED them you would do.

Not changing your actions AFTER you get elected because some moron claims they have some "mandate" they can't quite define that you have to abide by for reasons they can't quite explain.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:32am:

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:44pm: Gist wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41pm: I think you need to re-read your OP there... you probably meant Labor, not coalition. If you did then I certainly agree with you. All this drivel about "mandate" is for lazy retards who don't want to work to get legislation through. It wasn't a typo, but it probably wasn't the best use of grammar. You're right, it does look I meant the Coalition in "they". I will change, thanks for pointing it out. And you're also right, Labor would have a mandate FOR the carbon tax, the conservatives are too daft to understand. so if labor win the next election they would have a mandate for the carbon tax (meaning libs shoudl support it) but it the libs win they wont have a mandate to repeal it and labor shouldnt feel compelled to support the repeal?? do I really have to explain just how breathtakingly hypocritical that is?

Each side should just vote their policy, it's all pretty simple really.  If the Libs win the they will vote to repeal the price on carbon and Labor will vote against repealing it.

Just as Labor voted to implement a price on carbon and the Libs voted against it this time - it's sort of how the whole thing works.

There is no such thing as a "mandate", the only mandate you get is the votes you have in parliament and if the Libs don't get enough votes to either pass it on their own, or get enough Indies to come with them then it doesn't get repealed

Simple

john_g wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 8:23am: Labor should not repeal the carbon tax. It is the right thing to do,screw the imbeciles that want it repealed, most are incapable of understanding logic. So, basically, screw the majority and democracy, and keep the carbon tax, because YOU want it, skip?

The majority didn't want a GST either, but I dont here anyone complaining now. I doubt that figure quoted is correct either. But as far as I'm concerned,our kids futures are more important. when the tax is introduced most people will realise this whole thing is a beat up built on bullsh it by Abbott and his conga line of suckholes, They care nothing about the future of our children, and everything about short term gain of government. The whole "oh she lied" bullsh is just whiny little bitches that didn't get the gov they wanted.

skippy. wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:23am:

Labor should not repeal the carbon tax. It is the right thing to do,screw the imbeciles that want it repealed, most are incapable of understanding logic.

Absolutely correct.  The right thing to do is sometimes unpopular.  Tough. Its still the right thing to do.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably?

Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices??
Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened?

Gist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? So because that bunch of buffoons you love so much thought it was right to give the finger to the people who voted for them by voting against what they'd promised at the election once they won their seats YOU think that that somehow places a burden on everyone else to do similar? Do you have any idea how stupid that argument is?

well thats the principle of the mandate. In other words. ITS NOT ABOUT YOU! Its about he entire country that you serve. Having the ability to kybosh the clear will of the people does not mean you should. Workchoices would still be in existence if not for the Libs understand this concept.

Mandates are a crock of sh1t anyway.

No one votes for a party for a single reason only.

Any government which claims a "mandate", is usually just trying to deflect attention.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened?

yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO.

So my 2nd line is correct

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO. So my 2nd line is correct

Your second line says ""vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened""

The election result was 53/47 - yet current polling shows 57/43 for the LIBs so which side have a greater mandate?

So if they listened then in your eyes it's about "to save face & appear to have listened"

But if Labor does it then without question it's as honest as Gillard was when she said "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"???

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO. So my 2nd line is correct

well perhaps they DID learn and they learned to obey the will of the people. So tell me again why the ALP shouldnt do likewise? I still dont understand why you dont think the ALP shoudl vote for the repal in the face of massive mandate? Do you really want to exterminate the concept of the mandate? the ALP will suffer just as badly in the future.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO. So my 2nd line is correct well perhaps they DID learn and they learned to obey the will of the people. So tell me again why the ALP shouldnt do likewise? I still dont understand why you dont think the ALP shoudl vote for the repal in the face of massive mandate? Do you really want to exterminate the concept of the mandate? the ALP will suffer just as badly in the future.

So you could say they abandoned their principals in favour of popularity ;)

I don't want to exterminate the "Mandate" & I never said the ALP should not vote with the coalition to repeal the CT............ONCE, the coalition has revealed their alternative & how it will be funded.
Just rolling over without details just invites a worse policy for us all.
See whats on offer
suggest amendments
horsetrade if necessary
then vote with Libs

You know how politics was done up until 2 years ago when Abbott became leader & any agreement no matter on what suddenly became weakness.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Gist wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:34am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? So because that bunch of buffoons you love so much thought it was right to give the finger to the people who voted for them by voting against what they'd promised at the election once they won their seats YOU think that that somehow places a burden on everyone else to do similar? Do you have any idea how stupid that argument is? well thats the principle of the mandate. In other words. ITS NOT ABOUT YOU! Its about he entire country that you serve. Having the ability to kybosh the clear will of the people does not mean you should. Workchoices would still be in existence if not for the Libs understand this concept.

If the will of the people were that clear then there would be no opportunity to kybosh anything. The only reason Lieberals voted against Workchoices is because they realised they'd been firmly kicked in the buttcheeks because of it and they thought they'd best make a show of changing their ways.

And they're now working at ways to quietly get it back under the covers WITHOUT taking it to an election.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO. So my 2nd line is correct Your second line says ""vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened"" The election result was 53/47 - yet current polling shows 57/43 for the LIBs so which side have a greater mandate? So if they listened then in your eyes it's about "to save face & appear to have listened" But if Labor does it then without question it's as honest as Gillard was when she said "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"???

What? When was the election held all of a sudden? Did I miss it?

LIEBERALS HAVE NO MANDATE YOU FOOL - THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION!

Quote:

Why should Labor vote to repeal the carbon tax?

Better than going to gaol for being an accessory to fraud and misleading the Parliament.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO. So my 2nd line is correct well perhaps they DID learn and they learned to obey the will of the people. So tell me again why the ALP shouldnt do likewise? I still dont understand why you dont think the ALP shoudl vote for the repal in the face of massive mandate? Do you really want to exterminate the concept of the mandate? the ALP will suffer just as badly in the future. So you could say they abandoned their principals in favour of popularity ;) I don't want to exterminate the "Mandate" & I never said the ALP should not vote with the coalition to repeal the CT............ONCE, the coalition has revealed their alternative & how it will be funded. Just rolling over without details just invites a worse policy for us all. See whats on offer suggest amendments horsetrade if necessary then vote with Libs You know how politics was done up until 2 years ago when Abbott became leader & any agreement no matter on what suddenly became weakness.

The repeal of the CT doesnt have to be replaced with anything. the issue is the CT not any alternative. Labor is duty bound to support that in the even of a massive Abbott win.

and just for the record. the coalition has supported 87+% of the bills put to the parliament. that is hardly saying 'no' to everything. It is in fact not that different from the experience of john howard over 9 years of labor opposition who voted against everything (well actually only around 14% - just like Abbott). trhe difference now, is that the govt is so incompetent that the oppositions gets more coverage of its  activities than the govt. The opposition used to struggle to get noticed but Gillard keeps pointing at Abbott and raising his profile.

Gist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:49am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:31am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:34am: I love how a mandate is 'lazy' for the carbon tax but on workchoices it wa the right thing for the coalition to vote for its repeal. honestly guys, do you understand what it is to apply a principle equitably? Were the coalitions votes required to repeal workchoices?? Or did they just vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened? yes it was. they could have waited for the new senate but the Libs chose to vote for the repeal in respect of a clear mandate. Its not that hard to understand. A mandate existsed for removing workchoices and a mandate will exists for removing the CT. Integrity and principle demands that mandates be honoured or else we diminish parliamentary democracy even more and replace what we SHOULD DO with what we CAN DO. So my 2nd line is correct Your second line says ""vote against their own policy to save face & appear to have listened"" The election result was 53/47 - yet current polling shows 57/43 for the LIBs so which side have a greater mandate? So if they listened then in your eyes it's about "to save face & appear to have listened" But if Labor does it then without question it's as honest as Gillard was when she said "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"??? What? When was the election held all of a sudden? Did I miss it? LIEBERALS HAVE NO MANDATE YOU FOOL - THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION!

you really do have a rather massive problem with comprehension, dont you? this ENTIRE THREAD is talking about what happens AFTER the next election.

try and keep up!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

The repeal of the CT doesnt have to be replaced with anything.

Yes it does, the coalition has committed to the same 5% reduction of 1990 levels of CO2 and gone to the last 2 elections with that on the books as policy.
Now if they have abandoned action on CC then they should come clean & say so, otherwise they need to tell us how they will achieve the goal.


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

Labor is duty bound to support that in the even of a massive Abbott win.

Just as you argue that the Coalition had no duty to support an ETS regardless of the "Mandate"
Labor is not bound to do anything for the coalition, & when they run the same tactics as Abbott has don't you dare complain.

I will but I haven't supported the tactics, but you have.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

you really do have a rather massive problem with comprehension, dont you? this ENTIRE THREAD is talking about what happens AFTER the next election. try and keep up!

But that's easy...

After the next election the Lieberals lose, longfool spends a further three years crying how he wuz robbed and trying to convince anyone and everyone that he knew it wuz gunna happen all along. And he'll incessantly regale us with dick tugging fantasies such as that the Lieberals will definitely win the 2016 election by some huge margin and Labor will be obliged to abide by some mythical mandate that he dreamed up while wanking.

No need to wonder any more longtugger.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:14pm: The repeal of the CT doesnt have to be replaced with anything. Yes it does, the coalition has committed to the same 5% reduction of 1990 levels of CO2 and gone to the last 2 elections with that on the books as policy. Now if they have abandoned action on CC then they should come clean & say so, otherwise they need to tell us how they will achieve the goal. longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:14pm: Labor is duty bound to support that in the even of a massive Abbott win. Just as you argue that the Coalition had no duty to support an ETS regardless of the "Mandate" Labor is not bound to do anything for the coalition, & when they run the same tactics as Abbott has don't you dare complain. I will but I haven't supported the tactics, but you have.

what mandate for the ETS???  you cant claim a mandate for a policy that wasnt central to an election platform. 2007 was the Workchoecis election and a mandate was given and accepted. You cant therefore consider that EVERY policy has an unequivocal mandate or you might as well end up banning oppositions from voteing against the govt.

Thats the problem with a mandate - it is hard to define. but the CT repeal mandate wont be and THATS what's up for discussion.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

what mandate for the ETS???  you cant claim a mandate for a policy that wasnt central to an election platform.

The ratification of Kyoto and the ETS were as prominent as workchoices.
To say it's just a policy that was mentioned once or twice is denying reality.
If Rudd wasn't talking IR he was talking CC and ratifying Kyoto.

It's like saying Tony wouldn't have a mandate to repeal the mining tax.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:01pm: what mandate for the ETS???  you cant claim a mandate for a policy that wasnt central to an election platform. The ratification of Kyoto and the ETS were as prominent as workchoices. To say it's just a policy that was mentioned once or twice is denying reality. If Rudd wasn't talking IR he was talking CC and ratifying Kyoto. It's like saying Tony wouldn't have a mandate to repeal the mining tax.

why dont you clear it all  up for me and define what you think amandate is (or not). With Rudd winning the second SMALLEST gove-changing majority it is arguable that he didnt have a mandate at all. So, why dont you have a go at defining a mandate and let's work on this. FD's definition of a mandate is a majority in both houses which is about as pointless a definition as you will get while others will claim that Gillard has a mandate - which surely has to be obviously not true.

I look forward to seeing your definition of mandate so we can discuss it. Now if we could only keep the losers out of this....

Now if we could only keep the losers out of this....


Hey Gist, Longy wants you to stay out of this.

Tony attempted a mandate but was comprehensively rejected. So all your "definitions" are for nothing. It's settled. He doesn't have a mandate. Never will.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Now if we could only keep the losers out of this.... Hey Gist, Longy wants you to stay out of this.

Nah, he was talking about you, dopey.  :D :D :D

Longloser is having a sook.

A mandate????
Perhaps for the budgie smuggler brigade it is----------

---

mozzaok wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

A mandate???? Perhaps for the budgie smuggler brigade it is----------

now what would be really fascinating would be to see you in your unbelievably partisan style attempt a definition of a mandate. i DOUBT YOU COULD  with essentially saying 'labor good, liberal bad, oogah!!'

Feel free to prove me wrong.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

A mandate???? Perhaps for the budgie smuggler brigade it is----------

Dammit, mozza, you spoiled it! He'll never bite now...  ::)

If he'd bitten at my post, I'd have said Tony tried a man date with the independents but they all rejected the offer of his arse.

He'll never get one now. Not publicly anyway.  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 6:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 6:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:01pm: what mandate for the ETS???  you cant claim a mandate for a policy that wasnt central to an election platform. The ratification of Kyoto and the ETS were as prominent as workchoices. To say it's just a policy that was mentioned once or twice is denying reality. If Rudd wasn't talking IR he was talking CC and ratifying Kyoto. It's like saying Tony wouldn't have a mandate to repeal the mining tax. why dont you clear it all  up for me and define what you think amandate is (or not). With Rudd winning the second SMALLEST gove-changing majority it is arguable that he didnt have a mandate at all. So, why dont you have a go at defining a mandate and let's work on this. FD's definition of a mandate is a majority in both houses which is about as pointless a definition as you will get while others will claim that Gillard has a mandate - which surely has to be obviously not true. I look forward to seeing your definition of mandate so we can discuss it. Now if we could only keep the losers out of this....

I think we've discussed before what I would consider, 2/3rd's of seats in the lower, 60% to 70%.
Sorry to disappoint by I believes FD's definition is a TRUE mandate which Howard achieved in 04
Unfortunately a win seems to be the standard these days.
Now before you jump down my throat that Rudd had no mandate due to only winning the second SMALLEST gove-changing majority remember your the one who is arguing the coalition bowed to the "Workchoices" mandate.
Either he had 1 or he didn't

You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however not legitimate.

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate.

I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done.

Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on.

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:20pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done. Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on.

You'd burst a valve ;D
Polls consistently go in favour of both Euthanasia and gay marriage, be careful what you wish for ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:23pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:20pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done. Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on. You'd burst a valve ;D Polls consistently go in favour of both Euthanasia and gay marriage, be careful what you wish for ;)

Bullshyte, the daily poll stats can be manipulated to say what ever you like - I am not afraid of referendum on these subjects..why then are your kind?  Why are you always trying to manipulate the political system, flat out lie and anything else to thwart the democratic will of the people?  You are gutless that's why and a corrupt toad.

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:27pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:23pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:20pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done. Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on. You'd burst a valve ;D Polls consistently go in favour of both Euthanasia and gay marriage, be careful what you wish for ;) Bullshyte, the daily poll stats can be manipulated to say what ever you like - I am not afraid of referendum on these subjects..why then are your kind?  Why are you always trying to manipulate the political system, flat out lie and anything else to thwart the democratic will of the people?  You are gutless that's why and a corrupt toad.

sometimes the democratic will of the people has to be ignored for the benefit of those same people ... lets have a referendum on how much tax we all pay ... and see where that leaves the country .......

John Smith wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:38pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:27pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:23pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:20pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done. Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on. You'd burst a valve ;D Polls consistently go in favour of both Euthanasia and gay marriage, be careful what you wish for ;) Bullshyte, the daily poll stats can be manipulated to say what ever you like - I am not afraid of referendum on these subjects..why then are your kind?  Why are you always trying to manipulate the political system, flat out lie and anything else to thwart the democratic will of the people?  You are gutless that's why and a corrupt toad. sometimes the democratic will of the people has to be ignored for the benefit of those same people ... lets have a referendum on how much tax we all pay ... and see where that leaves the country .......

Bullshyte, for major reform, the people should always decide in a referendum, that is our only safeguard against political corruption and organized crime.  It is not the people who lack common sense it is organized political corruption and crime.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 6:17pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 6:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:01pm: what mandate for the ETS???  you cant claim a mandate for a policy that wasnt central to an election platform. The ratification of Kyoto and the ETS were as prominent as workchoices. To say it's just a policy that was mentioned once or twice is denying reality. If Rudd wasn't talking IR he was talking CC and ratifying Kyoto. It's like saying Tony wouldn't have a mandate to repeal the mining tax. why dont you clear it all  up for me and define what you think amandate is (or not). With Rudd winning the second SMALLEST gove-changing majority it is arguable that he didnt have a mandate at all. So, why dont you have a go at defining a mandate and let's work on this. FD's definition of a mandate is a majority in both houses which is about as pointless a definition as you will get while others will claim that Gillard has a mandate - which surely has to be obviously not true. I look forward to seeing your definition of mandate so we can discuss it. Now if we could only keep the losers out of this.... I think we've discussed before what I would consider, 2/3rd's of seats in the lower, 60% to 70%. Sorry to disappoint by I believes FD's definition is a TRUE mandate which Howard achieved in 04 Unfortunately a win seems to be the standard these days. Now before you jump down my throat that Rudd had no mandate due to only winning the second SMALLEST gove-changing majority remember your the one who is arguing the coalition bowed to the "Workchoices" mandate. Either he had 1 or he didn't

the mandate IS difficult to define but let's face it. according to most bozos on here their side ALWAYS has a mandate whereas the other side never has.

Abbott could conciveable win 2/3 of the seats at the next electino . IN fact that is more than likely. But then the question is amandate for what exactly? If you say his entire electoral platform that gives rise to a highly popular leader inserting bad policy into his platofmr and claiming a mandate for it. The notion that a voter agress 100% with their preferre party is nonsense.

I just beleive that the same people who want better parliamentary behaviour and adherence to conventions liek 'pairiing' cant pick and choose and a mandate IS one of the conventions. Either than or the Gillard govt could fall by virtue of a minister being out of the country.

Governments are not permitted to conduct major reform outside a referendum in which they gain and affirmative vote in a majority of people in a majority of states.  That is the only legal mandate for major reform.

This Carbon Tax was forced through on lies which tells you it should never have happened without a referendum and does not have legitimacy.

These Governments are going ahead with major reform, none of which they have a legal right to do outside a referendum, they have plans t5o incrementally integrate us into an Asian economic union, a single currency and then political union, none of which they have a right to even be discussing with other Governments, they are matters that cannot even begin without an affirmative vote in a referendum.  That is what makes it corruption and conspiracy.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

Abbott could conciveable win 2/3 of the seats at the next electino . IN fact that is more than likely.

I think that's very hopeful, I'll be suprised if he gets more than 54%, if he wins at all ;)


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

But then the question is amandate for what exactly? If you say his entire electoral platform that gives rise to a highly popular leader inserting bad policy into his platofmr and claiming a mandate for it.

There's always about 3 focal polices, at the moment repeal the CT, MMRT and offshore processing would be Tony's, Rudd IMO was WC,CC and reform of health.
Inserting something after the election or something that was released on the 4th page with 3 lines, is not on.


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

The notion that a voter agress 100% with their preferre party is nonsense.

Of course it is


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

I just beleive that the same people who want better parliamentary behaviour and adherence to conventions liek 'pairiing' cant pick and choose and a mandate IS one of the conventions. Either than or the Gillard govt could fall by virtue of a minister being out of the country.

Pairing is essential to the working of Parliament, if it wasn't there as you said government would not work.
Behavior well, they could do worse than at least try and emulate how the Brits go about debate.

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents?

I'm happy to discuss the topic, but firstly could you please explain the bolded?  :-?

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:26pm:

Governments are not permitted to conduct major reform outside a referendum in which they gain and affirmative vote in a majority of people in a majority of states.  That is the only legal mandate for major reform. This Carbon Tax was forced through on lies which tells you it should never have happened without a referendum and does not have legitimacy.

You truly are the quint essential dick head are you not? Possibly the most perfect example of low IQ i have seen!!!

If it were possible for the Australian electorate to have been more gullible than to have believed the children over board or weapons of mass deception lies, then they prove beyond question their ignorance when they suck up the opposition claims over the ETS.

The courage and clear positives of tackling air pollution in the same way we unquestionably address water and earth pollution, through initiatives like the ETS and the announced marine parks are a clear example of genuine reform not lip service to ignorance.

Abbott may not marginally mislead your understanding in the next election, so don't be confused. He stands for selfish mis conceived illusion, that somehow if we all hold blindly to the selfish, greedy obsessions that gave us the GFC all will magically be solved. Good luck with that, i was thinking i might take a mortgage that was 15x my annual wage and then blame everyone else but me because i cannot repay it.

OOP's double up

matty wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 8:57pm:

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:30pm: If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents? I'm happy to discuss the topic, but firstly could you please explain the bolded?  :-?

Explain what? your ignorance of the primary statement?? come on Matty we all; know you are an idiot but that really is waving not drowning.

The Carbon Tax should be declared illegitimate by the High Court, that is one way to repeal it, then Tony Abbott can put it to a referendum.  That is my preferred way of resolving this once and for all.  A once only winner takes all vote.

nairbe wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:14pm:

matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 8:57pm: TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:30pm: If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents? I'm happy to discuss the topic, but firstly could you please explain the bolded?  :-? Explain what? your ignorance of the primary statement?? come on Matty we all; know you are an idiot but that really is waving not drowning.

Yes, it is highly probable that the Coalition are going to lose the next election, isn't it?

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

The Carbon Tax should be declared illegitimate by the High Court, that is one way to repeal it, then Tony Abbott can put it to a referendum.  That is my preferred way of resolving this once and for all.  A once only winner takes all vote.

Well then sh1t for brains, if it is winner takes all you and all your dumb arse sh1t that you sprook are out the door. The whitie has defeated your idiotic rubbish and you are extinct.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

matty wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:39pm:

nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:14pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 8:57pm: TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:30pm: If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents? I'm happy to discuss the topic, but firstly could you please explain the bolded?  :-? Explain what? your ignorance of the primary statement?? come on Matty we all; know you are an idiot but that really is waving not drowning. Yes, it is highly probable that the Coalition are going to lose the next election, isn't it?

MMM, incapable of answering the question. Possibly one should get some remedial learning classes to help you.  :P :P :P :P :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;)

nairbe wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:46pm:

matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:39pm: nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:14pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 8:57pm: TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:30pm: If the Coalition win the next election, which is improbable in my view, then why should Labor vote for the carbon tax to be repealed? Everyone who votes for them will have voted knowing that they want the carbon tax to remain, so they will be in effect voting for the carbon tax. Why should those Labor MPs turn their back on their constituents? I'm happy to discuss the topic, but firstly could you please explain the bolded?  :-? Explain what? your ignorance of the primary statement?? come on Matty we all; know you are an idiot but that really is waving not drowning. Yes, it is highly probable that the Coalition are going to lose the next election, isn't it? MMM, incapable of answering the question. Possibly one should get some remedial learning classes to help you.  :P :P :P :P :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;)

What question? I asked how it was improbable that the Coalition would win the next election.

____ wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

If the coalition lose the next election, which is looking more likely by the day, this means they must allow a conscious vote on marriage equality. If not, then they have no grounds to demand anything of any other party.

What do you actually mean that if the Lib/Nat colilsion LOSE the Election.

What that means is we have a HUNG parliment and many minor partys fighting for control

One nation red necks and the like, maybe family first party members and GREENS

There has to be a outcome labor OR Lib/ nats colilsion we either continue with the carbon tax and the hardships entaled in that or we don't have a carbon tax , but we still have the hardships of the economy.

I doubt that abbott will remove the carbon tax after 18 months.

SOB

still a fair way off until the next election.  Mr Abbott may not win the 2013 election.  The Liberals just can not come to terms with that.  Labor might just win another term.    :) 

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:41pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:38pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:27pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:23pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:20pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done. Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on. You'd burst a valve ;D Polls consistently go in favour of both Euthanasia and gay marriage, be careful what you wish for ;) Bullshyte, the daily poll stats can be manipulated to say what ever you like - I am not afraid of referendum on these subjects..why then are your kind?  Why are you always trying to manipulate the political system, flat out lie and anything else to thwart the democratic will of the people?  You are gutless that's why and a corrupt toad. sometimes the democratic will of the people has to be ignored for the benefit of those same people ... lets have a referendum on how much tax we all pay ... and see where that leaves the country ....... Bullshyte, for major reform, the people should always decide in a referendum, that is our only safeguard against political corruption and organized crime.  It is not the people who lack common sense it is organized political corruption and crime.

so you ignore my question ... is that because your afraid of the answer? if we have a referendum to scrap taxes I say it would pass in a heartbeat ... where would that leave the country? common sense doesn't come into it .. if they had common sense Abbott would have gone long ago .... Joe publics common sense normally stops at his wallet

wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 7:34am:

still a fair way off until the next election.  Mr Abbott may not win the 2013 election.  The Liberals just can not come to terms with that.  Labor might just win another term.    :)

idiot.

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:59am:

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:47pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:41pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:38pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:27pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:23pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:20pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:13pm: You do not get a legitimate mandate for major reform through a general election because there are too many variables in the result.  Legitimacy for major reform only comes through a separate referendum requiring a majority of people in a majority of states supporting it.   These corrupt politicians are trying to get around that through the general election and often outright lying to the voters then claiming a mandate - it is however tot legitimate. I'd agree, but we'd be at the polls at least once a year if a referendum was required every time, nothing would get done. Some things are not supposed to get done, somethings are not about reform, they are about corruption and criminal conspiracy and the public must have its final right of veto through a referendum.  Put your carbon tax, your euthanasia and anything else like that to the people in a separate referendum or just leave it alone.  Because circumventing the will of the people is not on. You'd burst a valve ;D Polls consistently go in favour of both Euthanasia and gay marriage, be careful what you wish for ;) Bullshyte, the daily poll stats can be manipulated to say what ever you like - I am not afraid of referendum on these subjects..why then are your kind?  Why are you always trying to manipulate the political system, flat out lie and anything else to thwart the democratic will of the people?  You are gutless that's why and a corrupt toad. sometimes the democratic will of the people has to be ignored for the benefit of those same people ... lets have a referendum on how much tax we all pay ... and see where that leaves the country ....... Bullshyte, for major reform, the people should always decide in a referendum, that is our only safeguard against political corruption and organized crime.  It is not the people who lack common sense it is organized political corruption and crime. so you ignore my question ... is that because your afraid of the answer? if we have a referendum to scrap taxes I say it would pass in a heartbeat ... where would that leave the country? common sense doesn't come into it .. if they had common sense Abbott would have gone long ago .... Joe publics common sense normally stops at his wallet

Now there you go again who said anything about scrapping all taxes?  He just said the GST and the Carbon tax needed to be rescinded by the High Court or the Parliament because they were unconstitutional and had no mandate.  These Taxes did not go to the people in a plebiscite therefore they are illegal. 8-)