Palmer United Party boss Clive Palmer was licking his lips at the prospect of a fresh WA Senate election.

Mr Palmer said that PUP, with the support of the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, already held the balance of power in the federal senate and that he believed a new election would deliver him another two senators from WA.

He said PUP candidate Zhenya Wang, who won on the first count but lost out after the recount, was likely to run again.

``I would say we would be aiming to win two senators this time,’’ he said.

``West Australians know they can’t get much out of voting Labor or Liberal.

“They already know our party has the balance of power in the federal senate.

``If they vote for us, they know we can strengthen that power in the senate which would allow us to get back some of that GST for WA and right some wrongs.”

Mr Palmer said PUP would announce its candidates by Monday.

This will put the fox well & truly in the chicken run.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

``I would say we would be aiming to win two senators this time,’’ [Palmer] said.

Palmer tends to exaggerate his party's chances. He may win one, but two? No chance unless he makes a quota.

Oh FFS lets hope not, surely people are awake to him by now.

Grendel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

Oh for goodness sake lets hope not, surely people are awake to him by now.

Exactly what has PUP or he done which is the basis for that scattergun  slur?

I don’t trust Clive.

4 Lab + Ludlam + 1Lib would be nice.

Just my personal opinion but I suspect voters in WA will realign with the major parties after all the silly results in the Senate election of 2013.

Liberals will go down a % or few and Labor up a % or few as has been  suggested elswhere on here.

Greens will lose votes and you can forget Palmer and the rest.

Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason.

red baron wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason.

Can you justify that opinion?

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:28pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion?

Well he wont support the repeal of the Carbon Tax unless it is retrospective so he wont pay any!!

Is that good enough!

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:28pm: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion? Well he wont support the repeal of the Carbon Tax unless it is retrospective so he wont pay any!! Is that good enough!

No......if it is bad law ~ a tax to be axed ~ it always was bad law and no-one ought to have paid it.  It was bad law, was it not, Mr Abbott?

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:28pm: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion? Well he wont support the repeal of the Carbon Tax unless it is retrospective so he wont pay any!! Is that good enough! No......if it is bad law ~ a tax to be axed ~ it always was bad law and no-one ought to have paid it.  It was bad law, was it not, Mr Abbott?

Justified I think!

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:42pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:28pm: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion? Well he wont support the repeal of the Carbon Tax unless it is retrospective so he wont pay any!! Is that good enough! No......if it is bad law ~ a tax to be axed ~ it always was bad law and no-one ought to have paid it.  It was bad law, was it not, Mr Abbott? Justified I think!

Further...it was part of open PUP Policy, and I assume it will remain so.  Clive could argue, given his election and that of two Senators ~ he has a mandate to stick like glue to that Policy.

Aussie that doesnt alter the fact!

Clive is in it for Clive.. No one else!!

Do we really want people like this representing us....

Who next Rupert or the fat mining slut!!

;D

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

Aussie that doesnt alter the fact! Clive is in it for Clive.. No one else!! Do we really want people like this representing us.... Who next Rupert or the fat mining slut!! ;D

I'll let others take that bait.

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:05pm: Aussie that doesnt alter the fact! Clive is in it for Clive.. No one else!! Do we really want people like this representing us.... Who next Rupert or the fat mining slut!! ;D I'll let others take that bait.

Its a big fat juicy worm but I'll just keep swimming on past  :D

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 12:26pm: Oh for goodness sake lets hope not, surely people are awake to him by now. Exactly what has PUP or he done which is the basis for that scattergun  slur?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D
You are kidding right?

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:28pm: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion? Well he wont support the repeal of the Carbon Tax unless it is retrospective so he wont pay any!! Is that good enough! No......if it is bad law ~ a tax to be axed ~ it always was bad law and no-one ought to have paid it.  It was bad law, was it not, Mr Abbott?

Come on...  Redneck nailed it...  Clive is in it for Clive.

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:46pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:42pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:28pm: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion? Well he wont support the repeal of the Carbon Tax unless it is retrospective so he wont pay any!! Is that good enough! No......if it is bad law ~ a tax to be axed ~ it always was bad law and no-one ought to have paid it.  It was bad law, was it not, Mr Abbott? Justified I think! Further...it was part of open PUP Policy, and I assume it will remain so.  Clive could argue, given his election and that of two Senators ~ he has a mandate to stick like glue to that Policy.

Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... :D ;D :D :D ;D :D :D :D ::)

Quote:

Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate...

He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

Quote:

But Aussie you would now have to agree!!

He may well be, but you have produced nothing to establish it.  PUP has a policy on the carbon tax.....it was taken to the last election and that is what the people who voted for PUP expect Clive and the two Senators to pursue.

It is true - Clive is in it for Clive.

Pig of a bloke. Ask any of his staff (aside from Aussie)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 9:00pm:

It is true - Clive is in it for Clive. Pig of a bloke. Ask any of his staff (aside from Aussie)

Let's see some evidence, Mr Hicks.

(And noooo, I am not on his staff.  I own, operate and drive in the Taxi Industry.  Yeas, I am a Member of PUP, and yeas, I admit that after one of your Posts, I actually booked into the Resort to see what was on the TV.  You exaggerated the truth.  It was just a normal TV and if you selected the relevant Channels, yeas, there was "Clive" blurb.  There was no compulsion on you to look at them.  And yeas, I'm sure that if your Australian conference director tried to tell Clive how to run what Clive owns, Clive would have taken a nano-second to tell him to bugger off.)

So when I said that -

1. There are 2 Channels called Palmer TV running on loop about his life.

2. There is a channel called Titanic running Titanic film on loop - because the nutcase is building Titanic 2 and has become obsessed on the subject.

3. The Palmer resort has succeeded in pissing off the Australian PGA for putting a giant dinosaur on the 18th green and pissing off the Hyatt who packed up and left because of his antics.

4. Behind the car in reception there is a wall plastered with photos of ....... Himself!!!

What part do I have wrong??  :D

To quote our esteemed Managing Director of Australia (a Liberal 200 club member whose got me into some good dinners in the past)

"Welcome everyone to the APAC Conference which we in Australia are delighted to host.
It almost didn't go ahead, this resort for those of you who didn't know is owned by a very wealthy man but who is also an absolute fruit loop who should be locked into an asylum.
Of our 4 meetings, he only turned up to two and has changed our itinerary no less than 9 times...
Never again to quote our Marketing Director"

Palmer. Utter fricken loon.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 9:18pm:

So when I said that - 1. There are 2 Channels called Palmer TV running on loop about his life.

Correct.....and there are the usual other zillion channels.


Quote:

2. There is a channel called Titanic running Titanic film on loop -

Correct......and there are the usual other zillion channels.


Quote:

because the nutcase is building Titanic 2 and has become obsessed on the subject.

Really.  I reckon it is dead in the water.  But, time will tell.  His business anyway.  No skin off my nose or yours.


Quote:

3. The Palmer resort has succeeded in pissing off the Australian PGA for putting a giant dinosaur on the 18th green

I don't know exactly what happened and neither do you, but your hatred is quite obvious.


Quote:

...and pissing off the Hyatt who packed up and left because of his antics.

He sacked Hyatt.  Is that what you meant?  You do know that Hyatt had been managing/running the place at terminal losses when (I think it was) Lendlease who owned it.  They sold to Clive.  Clive gave Hyatt the flick, as any businessman would.  Why keep on a Management team which produces losses?


Quote:

4. Behind the car in reception there is a wall plastered with photos of ....... Himself!!!

I looked for that wall.  "Plastered?"



Quote:

To quote our esteemed Managing Director of Australia (a Liberal 200 club member whose got me into some good dinners in the past) "Welcome everyone to the APAC Conference which we in Australia are delighted to host. It almost didn't go ahead, this resort for those of you who didn't know is owned by a very wealthy man but who is also an absolute fruit loop who should be locked into an asylum. Of our 4 meetings, he only turned up to two and has changed our itinerary no less than 9 times... Never again to quote our Marketing Director"

Do you reckon Clive gives a two-penny bugger about him or them?  If that is the currency of your point, Clive could buy and sell all of them with his pocket money.

Point on your last one, Aussie. He sure couldn't buy us with either his loose change or every single coin he own.

His net worth is circa $2.2bn.

Want to know ours?

$268.7 bn.

That's one of life's problems.

No matter how big you think you are. There's always someone a lot bigger.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 9:41pm:

Point on your last one, Aussie. He sure couldn't buy us with either his loose change or every single coin he own. His net worth is circa $2.2bn. Want to know ours? $268.7 bn.

As I am sure you know, I was referring to your MD and your much vaunted Liberal 200 Club Members.

(Oh, I suppose your multi-national Master might be a corporate Member, in which case, I am wrong.  I assumed such a toffy nosed and named exclusively elite bunch of self inflated conservatives would be individuals, a Member in their own personal right, not begging themselves in as imposters on the bank accounts and credentials of their employers.)

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

Palmer United Party boss Clive Palmer was licking his lips at the prospect of a fresh WA Senate election. Mr Palmer said that PUP, with the support of the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, already held the balance of power in the federal senate and that he believed a new election would deliver him another two senators from WA. He said PUP candidate Zhenya Wang, who won on the first count but lost out after the recount, was likely to run again. ``I would say we would be aiming to win two senators this time,’’ he said. ``West Australians know they can’t get much out of voting Labor or Liberal. “They already know our party has the balance of power in the federal senate. ``If they vote for us, they know we can strengthen that power in the senate which would allow us to get back some of that GST for WA and right some wrongs.” WILL THAT MEAN TAKING SOME GST AWAY FROM QLD? Mr Palmer said PUP would announce its candidates by Monday.

I AM ANTICIPATING W.A. VOTERS HAVE WOKEN UP TO WHAT A MESS THEY COULD HAVE CREATED BY VOTING OR GIVING PREFERENCES TO MINORITY PARTIES...


CLIVE MIGHT BE IN FOR ONE HELL OF A SMACK.


me thinks the idol has feet of clay....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 9:18pm:

So when I said that - 1. There are 2 Channels called Palmer TV running on loop about his life. 2. There is a channel called Titanic running Titanic film on loop - because the nutcase is building Titanic 2 and has become obsessed on the subject. 3. The Palmer resort has succeeded in pissing off the Australian PGA for putting a giant dinosaur on the 18th green and pissing off the Hyatt who packed up and left because of his antics. 4. Behind the car in reception there is a wall plastered with photos of ....... Himself!!! What part do I have wrong??  :D To quote our esteemed Managing Director of Australia (a Liberal 200 club member whose got me into some good dinners in the past) "Welcome everyone to the APAC Conference which we in Australia are delighted to host. It almost didn't go ahead, this resort for those of you who didn't know is owned by a very wealthy man but who is also an absolute fruit loop who should be locked into an asylum. Of our 4 meetings, he only turned up to two and has changed our itinerary no less than 9 times... Never again to quote our Marketing Director" Palmer. Utter fricken loon.

he sounds like just what Australia needs.

a self interested wannabee...he thinks he has money??????...so did Bondy.....he thinks he should be PM... because hes rich dontcha know?..

he thinks if you look sideways at him he will sue the pants off you.... NICE!

he thinks he owns the world.. and then the world owes him...simple really.

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 9:00pm: It is true - Clive is in it for Clive. Pig of a bloke. Ask any of his staff (aside from Aussie) Let's see some evidence, Mr Hicks. (And noooo, I am not on his staff.  I own, operate and drive in the Taxi Industry.  Yeas, I am a Member of PUP, and yeas, I admit that after one of your Posts, I actually booked into the Resort to see what was on the TV.  You exaggerated the truth.  It was just a normal TV and if you selected the relevant Channels, yeas, there was "Clive" blurb.  There was no compulsion on you to look at them.  And yeas, I'm sure that if your Australian conference director tried to tell Clive how to run what Clive owns, Clive would have taken a nano-second to tell him to bugger off.)

really?????>.... OMG.. to see what was on T>V>  now I have heard everything....

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote.

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote.

HILARIOUS....do you think he is talking about


WILKIE  WINDSOR AND OAKESHOTT????? ;D ;D ;D ;D

who took not the slightest notice of who voted them in.

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote.

Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D

True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy.

Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda.

Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well.

Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of:

"There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy. Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda. Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well. Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of: "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together.

The Coalition blocked the ETS in the Senate twice during Rudd's term. If the mandate argument had any weight, they would have passed it because Rudd had a mandate to implement an ETS. In fact, an ETS was also Coalition policy, so by blocking the ETS, they ignored their own mandate to implement this policy.

So it is really unconvincing for any Coalition supporter to make the "mandate" argument given their own party's conduct.

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy. Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda. Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well. Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of: "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together. The Coalition blocked the ETS in the Senate twice during Rudd's term. If the mandate argument had any weight, they would have passed it because Rudd had a mandate to implement an ETS. In fact, an ETS was also Coalition policy, so by blocking the ETS, they ignored their own mandate to implement this policy. So it is really unconvincing for any Coalition supporter to make the "mandate" argument given their own party's conduct.

REALLY...

why is it a lefty always forgets to mention

that the GREENS also voted it down...



I wonder WHY???? seeing as how they wanted it so badly!

the libs have never pretended to like it..

Howards policy was far different from big kevs.. kevin rubbished it.. he wanted a 60% reduction by 2050... ::) ::) he claimed Howards way would never go anywhere near that...  ::) ::) ::) ::)

dont forget it wasnt Abbott policy..


are we on track btw?

cods wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:42pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy. Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda. Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well. Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of: "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together. The Coalition blocked the ETS in the Senate twice during Rudd's term. If the mandate argument had any weight, they would have passed it because Rudd had a mandate to implement an ETS. In fact, an ETS was also Coalition policy, so by blocking the ETS, they ignored their own mandate to implement this policy. So it is really unconvincing for any Coalition supporter to make the "mandate" argument given their own party's conduct. REALLY... why is it a lefty always forgets to mention that the GREENS also voted it down... I wonder WHY???? seeing as how they wanted it so badly! the libs have never pretended to like it.. Howards policy was far different from big kevs.. kevin rubbished it.. he wanted a 60% reduction by 2050... ::) ::) he claimed Howards way would never go anywhere near that...  ::) ::) ::) ::) dont forget it wasnt Abbott policy.. are we on track btw?

Ah .. but the Greens and their supporters don't bang on endlessly about mandates while disrepecting the mandates of others.

The Coalition are hypocrites.

cods wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 6:30am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 9:18pm: So when I said that - 1. There are 2 Channels called Palmer TV running on loop about his life. 2. There is a channel called Titanic running Titanic film on loop - because the nutcase is building Titanic 2 and has become obsessed on the subject. 3. The Palmer resort has succeeded in pissing off the Australian PGA for putting a giant dinosaur on the 18th green and pissing off the Hyatt who packed up and left because of his antics. 4. Behind the car in reception there is a wall plastered with photos of ....... Himself!!! What part do I have wrong??  :D To quote our esteemed Managing Director of Australia (a Liberal 200 club member whose got me into some good dinners in the past) "Welcome everyone to the APAC Conference which we in Australia are delighted to host. It almost didn't go ahead, this resort for those of you who didn't know is owned by a very wealthy man but who is also an absolute fruit loop who should be locked into an asylum. Of our 4 meetings, he only turned up to two and has changed our itinerary no less than 9 times... Never again to quote our Marketing Director" Palmer. Utter fricken loon. he sounds like just what Australia needs. a self interested wannabee...he thinks he has money??????...so did Bondy.....he thinks he should be PM... because hes rich dontcha know?.. he thinks if you look sideways at him he will sue the pants off you.... NICE! he thinks he owns the world.. and then the world owes him...simple really.

He's an A Grade nutcase cods.
Absolute sociopath.

Quote:

He's an A Grade nutcase cods. Absolute sociopath.

So you keep saying, and without one relevant piece of evidence.  The only thing you have against him is that he had the balls to tell you and your lot to bugger off from his Resort.

I'm not surprised he did, given the attitude you demonstrate here with just about every post you make, which is that you and yours are God's gift to the rest of us.

Sure, you are honest, but that does not excuse the level of brash, selfish, peacock arrogance on display. 

I would have loved to have been there when Clive showed 'you' the door.

Mind you, I'd then bring you back here, give you a VB and a talk about humility and what the true worth of a bloke is in this Country.

It ain't money, power, position or influence as you seem to suggest with every post.

:)


     

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:28pm:

red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion?

for starters, his retrospective Carbon tax repeal ... you think thats about anyone except himself?

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:28pm: red baron wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Clive Palmer is in Politics for Clive Palmer Inc. and for no other reason. Can you justify that opinion? for starters, his retrospective Carbon tax repeal ... you think thats about anyone except himself?

We've already been over this, so I won't repeat what I've already said.  ^^^^

My silly little guess is that if the tax is repealed retrospectively, it won't be just Clive who does not have to pay what even Abbott said is a bad tax which must be axed.

Come on Aussie, Clive is in politics to boost his business interests. Whatever he says now is no guide to his future conduct.

I hope no PUP is elected in WA.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Come on Aussie, Clive is in politics to boost his business interests. Whatever he says now is no guide to his future conduct. I hope no PUP is elected in WA.

He will be precluded from doing that, and he absented himself from Parliament when Abbott's axe the tax legislation was voted upon in the HoR.

While I am perfectly happy with the concept that like all of us, he is fundamentally always going to look after number one to the extent he can.....he says that he took this political course because one night, he was having a whinge to his Wife about how crappy things were, and she said something along the lines of, "Well, stop bitching to me, and do something yourself, whinger!"

So he did.  I reckon it has been a roller coaster ride even he did not predict. But, if someone can show me a flaw in PUP Policy, I'd be happy to debate it. 

Look, I can imagine you are happy that Libs lost Fairfax, a seat they absolutely took for granted.

What has Clive done for Faifax so far?

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Look, I can imagine you are happy that Libs lost Fairfax, a seat they absolutely took for granted. What has Clive done for Faifax so far?

Nothing visible yet.  Just like Mal Brough next door in Fisher has done nothing visible yet.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Look, I can imagine you are happy that Libs lost Fairfax, a seat they absolutely took for granted. What has Clive done for Faifax so far?

Probably more than the previous member; members in safe seats don't generally do as much for the electorate as they should.

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D

So how do you disagree with me?
Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything?

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy. Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda. Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well. Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of: "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together.

Puhlease...  I speak for myself I don't need you trying on the mindreader crap on this site too...   :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:00pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything?

Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it?

Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work.

The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate.

The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate.

The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament.

This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate.

And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

Quote:

And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

Excellent work!

Sorry Aussie much as i know you admire Clive, I think most of us have woken up to him and his look after Clive party and will give him the two fingered salute in WA's new vote!

Sorry Aussie!!

;)

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Sorry Aussie much as i know you admire Clive, I think most of us have woken up to him and his look after Clive party and will give him the two fingered salute in WA's new vote! Sorry Aussie!! ;)

Where do you get the idea that I 'admire' Clive?  In my case, I'd rather support PUP Policy and get some aggravation into the far too cosy two major party regime.

I'm no Greenie, so Clive is an obvious option.

I wonder if any heads roll about this matter?

Click here.

Brough is useless, but you reckon Clive could perform, sometime. But currently he is only as good as Brough and has done sod all for Fairfax.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:26pm:

Brough is useless, but you reckon Clive could perform, sometime. But currently he is only as good as Brough and has done sod all for Fairfax.

In fairness, this could also be said about quite a few newly-elected parliamentarians from across the political spectrum.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:26pm:

Brough is useless, but you reckon Clive could perform, sometime. But currently he is only as good as Brough and has done sod all for Fairfax.

George ~ pssssst ~ Clive does not ring me every time he kicks a goal.

I can tell you he is almost always in local news.  On that score, he beats Brough by a factor of a zillion.

Clive's best work will be seen after:

1.  The Tassie election (PUP is not going hard in SA.)
2.  The WA Senate re-run.
3.  Irrespective of 1. and 2.  ~ post July 1 in the Senate.....and best of all..............
4.  The next Qld. State election.....where PUP is positioning to deliver The Can't a nasty blow to his nuts.

Roller coaster stuff coming to a theartre near you, soon.

:)

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything? Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won...
The Coalition allowed him to do so.

Quote:

Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won... The Coalition allowed him to do so.

Nice piece of spin there.  No, he did not have a mandate.  He won an election in which that was a fundamental issue.  Hayseed came a very bad second (lost his own seat) and those who had to pick up the pieces had no choice but to dump on that policy. 

In fact, it was quite an expose` on LNP political expediency.  They went in on Workchoices, got mauled, and dumped it.

They have been sneaking up on it since then as well.  Ya have to remember that the current LNP Prefects were in Grade ?? when Hayseed was School Captain.

Grendel wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 8:57pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:29am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything? Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills. Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won... The Coalition allowed him to do so.

The bigger the font, the worse the argument.  ::)

And if it is roach then it is not an argument more a troll.

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:39pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:57pm: Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:29am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything? Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills. Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won... The Coalition allowed him to do so. The bigger the font, the worse the argument.  ::)

Got nothin?  Then I suggest you say nothing...  nothing worse than a sore loser.  ::)

Aussie wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:11pm:

Quote: Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won... The Coalition allowed him to do so. Nice piece of spin there.  No, he did not have a mandate.  He won an election in which that was a fundamental issue.  Hayseed came a very bad second (lost his own seat) and those who had to pick up the pieces had no choice but to dump on that policy.  In fact, it was quite an expose` on LNP political expediency.  They went in on Workchoices, got mauled, and dumped it. They have been sneaking up on it since then as well.  Ya have to remember that the current LNP Prefects were in Grade ?? when Hayseed was School Captain.

You are one of the few people I know that argue with someone whilst agreeing with them.  :D :D :D

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am:

So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

Very good and accurate explanation of how parliament really works Bam!

Just proves all this banging on about having a mandate to do this or that is a lot of rubbish.

All parties claim a mandate...  in some cases this IS a valid claim...  Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent.  Both were the major issues at previous elections.  So it can be argued that a mandate has been given.

Secondary policies not so much though.

As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite.

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:27am:

Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:39pm: Grendel wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:57pm: Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:29am: Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills. Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won... The Coalition allowed him to do so. The bigger the font, the worse the argument.  ::) Got nothin?  Then I suggest you say nothing...  nothing worse than a sore loser.  ::)

Geez you can make up crap. You did not refute anything I said. Your attempt at vandalising the thread with spray paint was an irrelevant point.

The Opposition chose to vote with the government. Who cares? The major parties vote the same way on a lot of legislation. Most likely, they chose to do so on this bill for reasons of their own - political, no doubt.

It does not in any way invalidate my point.

You don't win an argument by posting in an enormous font like a teenager with a can of spray paint and when this is pointed out you pretend you have won. You haven't. It's YOU that has got nothing.

Now put away the spray paint and let the grown-ups talk.

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10am:

All parties claim a mandate...  in some cases this IS a valid claim...  Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent.  Both were the major issues at previous elections.  So it can be argued that a mandate has been given. Secondary policies not so much though. As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite.

hummm but it doesnt mean the govt of the day has to abide by the result.....aka the ACT. local govt referendums TWO OF THEM...both against....but Bob Hawke said bugger them they are getting one.. ::) ::)

so no.. there is no such thing as a mandate.. its something pollies pretend we take in. and imagine they live by ..................their word. ;D ;D


as it is too many get elected on preferences......

maybe we should have two results .. one on primary..

and one on the full count....at least we would know what peoples FIRST intentions were.

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:24am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 8:10am: All parties claim a mandate...  in some cases this IS a valid claim...  Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent.  Both were the major issues at previous elections.  So it can be argued that a mandate has been given. Secondary policies not so much though. As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite. hummm but it doesnt mean the govt of the day has to abide by the result.....aka the ACT. local govt referendums TWO OF THEM...both against....but Bob Hawke said bugger them they are getting one.. ::) ::) so no.. there is no such thing as a mandate.. its something pollies pretend we take in. and imagine they live by ..................their word. ;D ;D as it is too many get elected on preferences...... maybe we should have two results .. one on primary.. and one on the full count....at least we would know what peoples FIRST intentions were.

We have those facts available under the existing system.

Bam wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:17am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 6:27am: Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:39pm: Grendel wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:57pm: Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:29am: Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills. Rudd had a mandate to get rid of Workchoices, people voted against it in droves... it was by far the main issue at the Election he won... The Coalition allowed him to do so. The bigger the font, the worse the argument.  ::) Got nothin?  Then I suggest you say nothing...  nothing worse than a sore loser.  ::) Geez you can make up crap. You did not refute anything I said. Your attempt at vandalising the thread with spray paint was an irrelevant point. Never happened.  you posted nothing of substance regards my point.  hardly what I'd call refutation. The Opposition chose to vote with the government. Who cares? The major parties vote the same way on a lot of legislation. Most likely, they chose to do so on this bill for reasons of their own - political, no doubt.  Most legislation was passed with bipartisan support...  yet the ALP claimed Abbott was Dr No.  that's a lie.  My point which you failed to refute was that the Libs let them dismantle the one policy they had a mandate for  Workchoices. It does not in any way invalidate my point. ::)  Nothing you've said invalidates mine. You don't win an argument by posting in an enormous font like a teenager with a can of spray paint and when this is pointed out you pretend you have won. You haven't. It's YOU that has got nothing.  Never been a graffitti artist or vandal slur someone else.  large font makes it hard for scanners to miss.  My point stands and is valid...  like I said...  you got nothing. Now put away the spray paint and let the grown-ups talk.  Put away your bias and stupidity...  I'm doubting you'll ever be a grown up. ::)

The Libs allowed it, did they?  My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?

Feel free to provide any evidence where they tried to speak or act against the ALP policy to get rid of Workchoices in Parliament.
They were defeated because of it, even Abbott admitted that...  That's why it was dead buried and cremated!!! ::) ::) ::)


Quote:

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says the Coalition has dropped its WorkChoices policy. Dr Nelson says the Coalition was damaged at the election by its industrial relations policies and he has officially declared WorkChoices dead. "We have listened and we have learned, and one of the issues that was very important to the Australian people in changing the Government on November 24 was that of WorkChoices," he said. "We've listened to the Australian people, we respect the decisions they have made, and WorkChoices is dead." He has called on the Government to move quickly to introduce its draft industrial relations legislation.

Labor did and Nelson let it pass unopposed....

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:29pm:

Feel free to provide any evidence where they tried to speak or act against the ALP policy to get rid of Workchoices in Parliament. They were defeated because of it, even Abbott admitted that...  That's why it was dead buried and cremated!!! ::) ::) ::) Quote: Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says the Coalition has dropped its WorkChoices policy. Dr Nelson says the Coalition was damaged at the election by its industrial relations policies and he has officially declared WorkChoices dead. "We have listened and we have learned, and one of the issues that was very important to the Australian people in changing the Government on November 24 was that of WorkChoices," he said. "We've listened to the Australian people, we respect the decisions they have made, and WorkChoices is dead." He has called on the Government to move quickly to introduce its draft industrial relations legislation. Labor did and Nelson let it pass unopposed....

You did not answer my question which was:


Quote:

Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?

Oh, bugger it.  I might as well do it myself.


Quote:

Labor and the Coalition won 18 seats each in the half-Senate election. The Greens won three seats, with Independent Nick Xenophon being elected on primary votes alone. This took the 76-member Senate total to 37 Coalition, 32 Labor, 5 Green, 1 Family First, and 1 Independent. With a majority being 39 senators, when the new Senate met after 1 July 2008, the balance of power was shared between Xenophon, Family First's Steve Fielding and the five Greens. Xenophon, although reported as left-of-centre,[12] indicated plans to work closely with the renegade National, Senator Barnaby Joyce.[13] If sufficient Coalition senators vote for government legislation, support from the crossbench will not be required.

Ergo, the LNP did not 'allow' a burial of Workchoices.  They had no choice, because the Senate (no matter what the LNP wanted) was always going to kiss it good-bye.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm:

The Libs allowed it, did they?  My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?

aussie they lost the election... it was bombarded with ads from the unions on WORKCHOICES..

everyone knew they had no choice but to drop it..if they had voted for it...they would never have got in again...not with the unions running the show..

and whilst I dont expect you to agree... yes I believe the unions control the ALP>.... and labor would not dare cross them... ask krudd?

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 2:34pm:

cods wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 8:24am: Grendel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 8:10am: All parties claim a mandate...  in some cases this IS a valid claim...  Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent.  Both were the major issues at previous elections.  So it can be argued that a mandate has been given. Secondary policies not so much though. As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite. hummm but it doesnt mean the govt of the day has to abide by the result.....aka the ACT. local govt referendums TWO OF THEM...both against....but Bob Hawke said bugger them they are getting one.. ::) ::) so no.. there is no such thing as a mandate.. its something pollies pretend we take in. and imagine they live by ..................their word. ;D ;D as it is too many get elected on preferences...... maybe we should have two results .. one on primary.. and one on the full count....at least we would know what peoples FIRST intentions were. We have those facts available under the existing system.

if you can be bothered nitpicking..which I know you do.. however.. its the last count that gets the attention...... the primary count is only ever mentioned on the likes of these forums.... well that I can see anyway.....

which is a shame.. it should be highlighted....and then get told who gave what to whom...

I dont know of anyone who voted for someone who didnt make it.. that  can tell me who got their voted???????... they plain dont know..because it isnt a priority with them... and there s a lot like that.

http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2012/02/09/SCN_09-02-2012_EGN_07_palmer3_fct1026x631x453_t460.jpg

He looks rather crook to me.

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 3:39pm: The Libs allowed it, did they?  My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel? aussie they lost the election... it was bombarded with ads from the unions on WORKCHOICES.. everyone knew they had no choice but to drop it..if they had voted for it...they would never have got in again...not with the unions running the show.. and whilst I dont expect you to agree... yes I believe the unions control the ALP>.... and labor would not dare cross them... ask krudd?

ALP Members control the ALP and those Members include unionists and Unions.  They actually have elections to decide who are the Office Bearers of Unions, and the ALP even has an election (among its Members) to determine who is their Parliamentary Leader in the event of a challenge.

Unlike the LNP which is the bitch of Murdoch and Gina.

And, I have to say that both party structures offer much better than PUP at the moment, which really has no proper system to facilitate Member involvement.  If that continues, PUP will disappear.  Clive cannot do it by himself, and no-one either asks him to or expects him to.

But.....unless he facilitates proper Member involvement at local levels and upwards, he is not going to last.

I'm not saying he resists that, but, as yet, it has not happened.  Probably understandable given the pace at which events are unfolding all over the Country.

Cods:


Quote:

if you can be bothered nitpicking..which I know you do..

Nitpicking is it.....to simply ask you to look at AEC election counts, on line or in the papers.  Turn it up cods, are you really as smacking dumb as skippy and others say you are?

:(

PUP...RIP
Seems Palmer spent up big at the latest elections and came up zippo.... 
The people have woken up to this bloated charlatan and shown him and his party the door.  Even ON lasted longer than PUP.

Grendel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 7:43am:

PUP...RIP Seems Palmer spent up big at the latest elections and came up zippo....  The people have woken up to this bloated charlatan and shown him and his party the door.  Even ON lasted longer than PUP.

Really?  How many ON Members of the Tasmanian and SA Parliament have there been?

I personally think Clive Palmer's PUP is a bit of a novelty of the last federal election and will probably be never heard of again after the present MP's finish their terms and fail to be re-elected.

They  were more of a protest against the major parties in the last federal election imo, I also doubt they will win a senate seat in the WA senate election.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 7:43am: PUP...RIP Seems Palmer spent up big at the latest elections and came up zippo....  The people have woken up to this bloated charlatan and shown him and his party the door.  Even ON lasted longer than PUP. Really?  How many ON Members of the Tasmanian and SA Parliament have there been?

Talk about denial in the face of reality....
Wanna change the focus do you Aussie.... 
No way cookie boy, you and Fat Clive are in a sinking boat to China... he'll love that.
So how many seats did the PUP win over the last 2 elections?  Hmmmm?  Hmmmm?
I can wait all day you know. ;D ;D ;D

Near as I can tell PUP never existed prior to about July, 2013.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

Near as I can tell PUP never existed prior to about July, 2013.

Far as i can tell ON doesn't really exist anymore and didn't stand in either of those elections.

So stop greasing Clive's fat arse and start answering my questions...  or admit I'm right.  ;D

Grendel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 10:36am:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 10:30am: Near as I can tell PUP never existed prior to about July, 2013. Far as i can tell ON doesn't really exist anymore and didn't stand in either of those elections. So stop greasing Clive's fat arse and start answering my questions...  or admit I'm right.  ;D

You are always right.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 10:37am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 10:36am: Aussie wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 10:30am: Near as I can tell PUP never existed prior to about July, 2013. Far as i can tell ON doesn't really exist anymore and didn't stand in either of those elections. So stop greasing Clive's fat arse and start answering my questions...  or admit I'm right.  ;D You are always right.

Not always...  but based on history...  the odds are vastly in my favour.  ;)

So far as I can tell PUP did not run in South Australia. In Tasmania they polled 5.0% of the vote, which is similar to what they polled nationally at the Federal election. They are a chance to win the last seat in Braddon.

The Nationals ran in both states, apparently for comedy. In Tasmania they polled 0.8% of the vote and in South Australia they polled 0.1%.

Quote:

Palmer United Party to Contest South Australian State Election The Palmer United Party today announced it will be contesting next year’s South Australian election, scheduled to be held on March 15, 2014. Palmer United Party federal leader Clive Palmer said he was committed to improving the southern state, which has been neglected by the major parties. “The Palmer United Party is looking to the future of SA well beyond Saturday’s federal election,” Mr Palmer said. “The Palmer United Party is committed to improving the state’s health system by injecting $8 billion into SA hospitals and is also focused on fixing tackling the state’s employment rate, which at 7.1 per cent is one of the highest in the country.” Palmer United Party South Australian Senate team leader James McDonald said the Party is committed to the people of SA. “Along the campaign trail South Australians have made it clear that they need change in government and the Palmer United Party can make a difference,” he said. “The current Labor government has failed to build the SA economy and instead have sent 60 per cent of State Government contracts interstate sacrificing South Australian jobs and the livelihoods of families.” The Queensland deputy leader of the Palmer United Party, Carl Judge, announced in Adelaide the party would be fielding candidates in all seats at the March state election. “Clive Palmer considers issues in SA to be of major national significance and he is committed to reviving the state’s economy,” he said. The focus will be on unemployment, building the economy, ensuring government contracts remain within the states borders and reduce taxes.” ENDS

Did they change their plans...  Aussie the PUP authority has not commented on this as yet.

Grendel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:

Quote: Palmer United Party to Contest South Australian State Election The Palmer United Party today announced it will be contesting next year’s South Australian election, scheduled to be held on March 15, 2014. Palmer United Party federal leader Clive Palmer said he was committed to improving the southern state, which has been neglected by the major parties. “The Palmer United Party is looking to the future of SA well beyond Saturday’s federal election,” Mr Palmer said. “The Palmer United Party is committed to improving the state’s health system by injecting $8 billion into SA hospitals and is also focused on fixing tackling the state’s employment rate, which at 7.1 per cent is one of the highest in the country.” Palmer United Party South Australian Senate team leader James McDonald said the Party is committed to the people of SA. “Along the campaign trail South Australians have made it clear that they need change in government and the Palmer United Party can make a difference,” he said. “The current Labor government has failed to build the SA economy and instead have sent 60 per cent of State Government contracts interstate sacrificing South Australian jobs and the livelihoods of families.” The Queensland deputy leader of the Palmer United Party, Carl Judge, announced in Adelaide the party would be fielding candidates in all seats at the March state election. “Clive Palmer considers issues in SA to be of major national significance and he is committed to reviving the state’s economy,” he said. The focus will be on unemployment, building the economy, ensuring government contracts remain within the states borders and reduce taxes.” ENDS Did they change their plans...  Aussie the PUP authority has not commented on this as yet.

PUP is not yet registered in SA, but I believe there were candidates who ran as PUP Members.

The mention there of Carl Judge reminded me of a recent development.  He is the sitting Qld State Member for Yerongpilly (a Brisbane electorate.)  He was elected as an LNP candidate, but resigned and joined PUP with a bloke Alex Douglas, also an LNP renegade who joined PUP.  So, PUP has two sitting Members in  the House, neither having been elected as PUP candidates.

One of the most controversial LNP pollies in Queensland is Jarrod Bleijie, a young Lawyer of SFA experience who Newmann made Attorney General.  He has been in constant conflict with voters and the Legal Profession over some well publicised pieces of legislation, (including the Bikie stuff,) and even though his seat, Kawana, (here on the Sunshine Coast ~) is blue ribbon LNP, it has been held by Labor, and Bleijie is seen as very vulnerable.  PUP polled well in the equivalent Federal electorate of Fisher, won by Mal Brough for the LNP in 2013.  He is also on the nose through (a) a pretty ordinary prior representation in an adjoining LNP electorate centered around Caboolture, currently held by Wyatt Roy, the youngest Member in Canberra, and (b) some grubby involvement in the Slipper/Ashby affair yet to be resolved in the Federal Court.

So......it seems Carl Judge has established that he might not retain Yerongpilly if he runs in the next State election as a PUP candidate, because ~ he has been endorsed as the PUP candidate to stand against Bleijie in Kawana.  Kawana and Brisbane are separated by about an hour's drive.

He has the advantage as being of LNP dna, as is PUP of course, has Parliamentary experience......but he will still be seen as a 'blow in,' by the locals, as was Palmer's LNP opponent, Ted O'Brien in September last year.

Oh ~ it will be a fun ride!

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D

not to me.  but they certainly do to you.  Mandates are ETHICAL considerations which is why so few have the foggiest clue what they are.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy. Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda. Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well. Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of: "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together.

you understand even less what a mandate is than the average.  a MANDATE is something granted by achieiving a SIZABLE majority on the back of a specific well-known policy position.  a mandate is not something given to you by a small group of like-minded people but by the large majority of people you affect.

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

cods wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:19pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:42pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D True.  People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy.  If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy. Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda. Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well. Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of: "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together. The Coalition blocked the ETS in the Senate twice during Rudd's term. If the mandate argument had any weight, they would have passed it because Rudd had a mandate to implement an ETS. In fact, an ETS was also Coalition policy, so by blocking the ETS, they ignored their own mandate to implement this policy. So it is really unconvincing for any Coalition supporter to make the "mandate" argument given their own party's conduct. REALLY... why is it a lefty always forgets to mention that the GREENS also voted it down... I wonder WHY???? seeing as how they wanted it so badly! the libs have never pretended to like it.. Howards policy was far different from big kevs.. kevin rubbished it.. he wanted a 60% reduction by 2050... ::) ::) he claimed Howards way would never go anywhere near that...  ::) ::) ::) ::) dont forget it wasnt Abbott policy.. are we on track btw? Ah .. but the Greens and their supporters don't bang on endlessly about mandates while disrepecting the mandates of others. The Coalition are hypocrites.

like when the greens voted AGAINST the ETS that you claim Rudd has a mandate for?

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything? Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

complete rubbish - and the reason you don't get mandates is because they are not legal or parliamentary devices. They are moral and ethical ones.  It is why the coalition voted to repeal workchoices despite supporting the legislation.  they did it because the voters (remember them )clearly rejected it.  the voters clearly rejected the carbon tax too. the trouble is there is simply no way you would ever think there is a mandate for legislation you don't like - because the ethical position is not something you seem to understand.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm:

The Libs allowed it, did they?  My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?

the coalition and the conservative indies Xenophon and family first.  it NOT labor and greens.

Bam wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

So far as I can tell PUP did not run in South Australia. In Tasmania they polled 5.0% of the vote, which is similar to what they polled nationally at the Federal election. They are a chance to win the last seat in Braddon. The Nationals ran in both states, apparently for comedy. In Tasmania they polled 0.8% of the vote and in South Australia they polled 0.1%.

the nats have always been small in SA but they committed suicide here some years ago when the sole nat sided with labor to form govt in return for a cabinet position of course.  they have since all but disappeared.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:29am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything? Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills. complete rubbish - and the reason you don't get mandates is because they are not legal or parliamentary devices. They are moral and ethical ones.  It is why the coalition voted to repeal workchoices despite supporting the legislation.  they did it because the voters (remember them )clearly rejected it.  the voters clearly rejected the carbon tax too. the trouble is there is simply no way you would ever think there is a mandate for legislation you don't like - because the ethical position is not something you seem to understand.

Your post is complete rubbish. As usual, you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your waffle.

Ethics? Morality? Do you even know what these are?  How dare you preach about ethics and morality when the Liberals are trying to force the arts to accept tobacco sponsorship?

melielongtime...answer me this.  If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed?

Bam wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 4:34pm: Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:29am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:00pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:59am: Grendel wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 6:29pm: Quote: Mandate?  What percent of the vote gives him a mandate... He was elected on that Policy.  Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy.  They have a mandate to pursue that Policy.  Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them. A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance...  not a poofteenth of the vote. Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power.  ;D So how do you disagree with me? Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything? Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it? Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate. The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate. The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament. This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate. And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills. complete rubbish - and the reason you don't get mandates is because they are not legal or parliamentary devices. They are moral and ethical ones.  It is why the coalition voted to repeal workchoices despite supporting the legislation.  they did it because the voters (remember them )clearly rejected it.  the voters clearly rejected the carbon tax too. the trouble is there is simply no way you would ever think there is a mandate for legislation you don't like - because the ethical position is not something you seem to understand. Your post is complete rubbish. As usual, you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your waffle. Ethics? Morality? Do you even know what these are?  How dare you preach about ethics and morality when the Liberals are trying to force the arts to accept tobacco sponsorship?

nice deflection (which isn't even true) and proves yet again how little you understand of ethics and morality and why therefore a 'mandate' is like a discussion of quantum physics to you: way over your head.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

melielongtime...answer me this.  If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed?

and because this is an ethical consideration then the circumstances that occur define the action.  if you are out-voted  then your vote is meaningless and while voting against the national mood is poor-form, it is no-harm no fail.  but say YOUR vote is the one that determines the outcome, by virtue of the quirky electoral system which as we know makes parliamentary representation at best a moderate barometer of national wishes. do you vote for YOUR opinion which serves the possible wishes of one electorate or do you serve the wishes of the 150 who have voted the other way? do you use your position that is given to you by accident or do you consider the wishes of the significant majority?

that is why it is an ethical and moral question.  Maybe your legal upbringing has given you that lowest-common-denominator opinion on behaviour - if it is legal then that's the only consideration. But there are some who understand that right and wrong are higher concepts than legality.

Why should you vote, garnered on the back of very few people and won by a slim majority (or by preferences alone) allow you to overrule the clear wishes of the majority.

I look forward to your explanation of power vs responsibility.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 4:47pm: melielongtime...answer me this.  If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed? and because this is an ethical consideration then the circumstances that occur define the action.  if you are out-voted  then your vote is meaningless and while voting against the national mood is poor-form, it is no-harm no fail.  but say YOUR vote is the one that determines the outcome, by virtue of the quirky electoral system which as we know makes parliamentary representation at best a moderate barometer of national wishes. do you vote for YOUR opinion which serves the possible wishes of one electorate or do you serve the wishes of the 150 who have voted the other way? do you use your position that is given to you by accident or do you consider the wishes of the significant majority? that is why it is an ethical and moral question.  Maybe your legal upbringing has given you that lowest-common-denominator opinion on behaviour - if it is legal then that's the only consideration. But there are some who understand that right and wrong are higher concepts than legality. Why should you vote, garnered on the back of very few people and won by a slim majority (or by preferences alone) allow you to overrule the clear wishes of the majority. I look forward to your explanation of power vs responsibility.

You know the answer to that question.  It is exactly why Gillard had to compromise on the carbon tax because some independants wanted it, and they forced her hand, and all power to them for doing so.

In case you don't know............as the elected candidate for a specific electorate, I have an ethical, moral, fiduciary and mandated obligation to act precisely as I promised I would to those who elected me, whether that be by way of overwhelming first preference count, or via preference distribution.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 5:05pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 4:47pm: melielongtime...answer me this.  If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed? and because this is an ethical consideration then the circumstances that occur define the action.  if you are out-voted  then your vote is meaningless and while voting against the national mood is poor-form, it is no-harm no fail.  but say YOUR vote is the one that determines the outcome, by virtue of the quirky electoral system which as we know makes parliamentary representation at best a moderate barometer of national wishes. do you vote for YOUR opinion which serves the possible wishes of one electorate or do you serve the wishes of the 150 who have voted the other way? do you use your position that is given to you by accident or do you consider the wishes of the significant majority? that is why it is an ethical and moral question.  Maybe your legal upbringing has given you that lowest-common-denominator opinion on behaviour - if it is legal then that's the only consideration. But there are some who understand that right and wrong are higher concepts than legality. Why should you vote, garnered on the back of very few people and won by a slim majority (or by preferences alone) allow you to overrule the clear wishes of the majority. I look forward to your explanation of power vs responsibility. You know the answer to that question.  It is exactly why Gillard had to compromise on the carbon tax because some independants wanted it, and they forced her hand, and all power to them for doing so. In case you don't know............as the elected candidate for a specific electorate, I have an ethical, moral, fiduciary and mandated obligation to act precisely as I promised I would to those who elected me, whether that be by way of overwhelming first preference count, or via preference distribution.

but in the circumstance outlined above you are being asked to make a decision for EVERYONE when the majority want the opposite of what you want.  yes it is a conflict and one that is resolved by resorting to ethics and morality.

do you choose to over-ride everyones wishes because an accident gives you the legal power to do so? or do you act with EVERYONES interest in mind.

I wait for your next excuse for why your wishes trumps everyones at any time and any place.

It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is.  If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote.  The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate.  I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.'

I would truly 'represent' those who elected me.

(Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform.  Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.)

If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians, and even then, a person who was elected after campaigning 'I will repeal the carbon tax,' would stay that course.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is.  If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote.  The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate.  I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.' I would truly 'represent' those who elected me. (Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform.  Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.) If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians.

you are more than clever enough to understand the argument but clearly lack the ethical foundation to be able to understand it.

the question was all about when a single person is given the POWER to over-ride the wishes of the signifcant majority of the entire country then what should they do.

I understand your reluctance to answer the question.  it is truly the Devils alternative for you.  If you do only what you want you clearly have no regard for anyone else and if you listen to the vast majority you are suddenly in the world of moral and ethical decision-making, something you learned as lawyer to avoid.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 6:00pm: It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is.  If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote.  The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate.  I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.' I would truly 'represent' those who elected me. (Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform.  Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.) If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians. you are more than clever enough to understand the argument but clearly lack the ethical foundation to be able to understand it. the question was all about when a single person is given the POWER to over-ride the wishes of the signifcant majority of the entire country then what should they do. I understand your reluctance to answer the question.  it is truly the Devils alternative for you.  If you do only what you want you clearly have no regard for anyone else and if you listen to the vast majority you are suddenly in the world of moral and ethical decision-making, something you learned as lawyer to avoid.

I know I have already answered your question.  I'd vote to repeal the carbon tax, and I would not give any regard to anyone other than those who voted for me because I made a 'promise' to them.  Simple stuff.

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 16th, 2014 at 6:00pm: It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is.  If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote.  The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate.  I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.' I would truly 'represent' those who elected me. (Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform.  Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.) If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians. you are more than clever enough to understand the argument but clearly lack the ethical foundation to be able to understand it. the question was all about when a single person is given the POWER to over-ride the wishes of the signifcant majority of the entire country then what should they do. I understand your reluctance to answer the question.  it is truly the Devils alternative for you.  If you do only what you want you clearly have no regard for anyone else and if you listen to the vast majority you are suddenly in the world of moral and ethical decision-making, something you learned as lawyer to avoid. I know I have already answered your question.  I'd vote to repeal the carbon tax, and I would not give any regard to anyone other than those who voted for me because I made a 'promise' to them.  Simple stuff.

the amoral position.  I expected nothing more.  do they teach you in law school how to put morality into a bank deposit box and hope it is still alive when you retire and try and retrieve it?

no wonder PUP appeals to you.  an angry self-obsessed sociopath seeking to get his own way and trample on anyone who gets in his way.  the inevitable heart-attack he will get is probably australias best hope.

Quote:

the amoral position.  I expected nothing more.  do they teach you in law school how to put morality into a bank deposit box and hope it is still alive when you retire and try and retrieve it?

Yes 'amoral' in the sense that I promised something, and I therefore must deliver irrespective of other competing demands, and in  that regard, I remove your 'a.'


Quote:

no wonder PUP appeals to you.  an angry self-obsessed sociopath seeking to get his own way and trample on anyone who gets in his way.  the inevitable heart-attack he will get is probably australias best hope.

PUP not only appeals to me in Queensland, and 'yes' Clive/PUP has the balls to publish a platform, campaign on it, and guess what?  The carbon tax repeal is not gonna happen.  So.......off we go to a double dissolution.

Lovely, and thanks Clive/PUP for doing what you promised you would if you were elected.

Abbott will be forced to do what he promised he'd do, and isn't that democracy working, huh?

:)

What I like about Clive is his humility.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

What I like about Clive is his humility.

A kindred spirit, hey Andrei?

I suggest that since I'm not a subject you are "au fait" with, let alone competent in you should probably shut up about me.


Quote:

Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation.  What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda

Clearly you are clueless not only about me and what I think.  :D :D :D

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

Quote: the amoral position.  I expected nothing more.  do they teach you in law school how to put morality into a bank deposit box and hope it is still alive when you retire and try and retrieve it? Yes 'amoral' in the sense that I promised something, and I therefore must deliver irrespective of other competing demands, and in  that regard, I remove your 'a.' [quote]no wonder PUP appeals to you.  an angry self-obsessed sociopath seeking to get his own way and trample on anyone who gets in his way.  the inevitable heart-attack he will get is probably australias best hope.

PUP not only appeals to me in Queensland, and 'yes' Clive/PUP has the balls to publish a platform, campaign on it, and guess what?  The carbon tax repeal is not gonna happen.  So.......off we go to a double dissolution.

Lovely, and thanks Clive/PUP for doing what you promised you would if you were elected.

Abbott will be forced to do what he promised he'd do, and isn't that democracy working, huh?

:)[/quote]

say what??? abbott promises a repeal of the carbon tax and because you think Palmer will stop it that this is somehow an abbot failing???

now I know whay u r a taxi driver and no longer a lawyer.  probably disbarred... for incompetence.

Is it possible that voters are realising the PUP may really mean "PUPPETS under PALMER",  and, that if candidates are elected, they will represent Palmer's interests and not those of their electorate?

Quote:

abbott promises a repeal of the carbon tax and because you think Palmer will stop it that this is somehow an abbot failing???

I did not say that.  What I said was that PUP ran on the published platform of repealing the carbon tax with a very clearly explained condition.  I expect they will maintain that position when the matter comes before the Senate.  That gives Abbott three choices:

1.  Agree to the condition.
2.  Not agree and take us to a DD.
3.  Not agree and breach his promise to take us to a DD.


Quote:

now I know whay u r a taxi driver and no longer a lawyer.  probably disbarred... for incompetence.

Sorry to burst your bubble.  I retired about ten years ago, bought Cabs, sat on my arse for 12 months, got bored, and decided I might as well drive what I own and operate.

:)

maddas wrote on Mar 17^th, 2014 at 7:10am:

Is it possible that voters are realising the PUP may really mean "PUPPETS under PALMER",  and, that if candidates are elected, they will represent Palmer's interests and not those of their electorate?

Or they might do something entirely unexpected and vote as per their Policy Statements promoted during the 2013 Election.  Who'd a thunk that, wot?

Aussie wrote on Mar 17^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

maddas wrote on Mar 17th, 2014 at 7:10am: Is it possible that voters are realising the PUP may really mean "PUPPETS under PALMER",  and, that if candidates are elected, they will represent Palmer's interests and not those of their electorate? Or they might do something entirely unexpected and vote as per their Policy Statements promoted during the 2013 Election.  Who'd a thunk that, wot?

It's not as if the Liberals are keeping their promises and policies!

Bam wrote on Mar 17^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 17th, 2014 at 3:16pm: maddas wrote on Mar 17th, 2014 at 7:10am: Is it possible that voters are realising the PUP may really mean "PUPPETS under PALMER",  and, that if candidates are elected, they will represent Palmer's interests and not those of their electorate? Or they might do something entirely unexpected and vote as per their Policy Statements promoted during the 2013 Election.  Who'd a thunk that, wot? It's not as if the Liberals are keeping their promises and policies!

like what exactly? 

but you do love your tit-for-tat approach to politics.  you must really hate that you cannot suspend and ban other posters here like you did in the last forum that you personally destroyed.

if given power, your make Joh look like Ghandi.

Looks like PUP is doing okay in the lead-up to the WA Senate (re) election.

Click here.

The WA voting public are amongst some of the most retarded in Australia, I wouldnt use that poll as a ringing endorsement of Palmer. The man is a buffoon, but west australians quite comfortably elect buffoons. Look at Barnett, went to the election after downgrading the states credit rating and on the promise of a 80 billion deficit within 5 years.  Completely profligate, inept, corrupt government got back in with a landslide victory.

And the fat land whale comes from the same mentality as Gina Hancock, they would make a good pair.

Aussie wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

Looks like PUP is doing okay in the lead-up to the WA Senate (re) election. Click here.

Clive Palmer's multimillion-dollar advertising splurge ahead of the April 5 Senate



he sounds desperate...multi million dollars on advertising...ye gods...he will explode if it all goes for nothing wont he..

if anyone believes that fat weasel  well they deserve what they get thats all I can say.

ian wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

The WA voting public are amongst some of the most retarded in Australia, I wouldnt use that poll as a ringing endorsement of Palmer. The man is a buffoon, but west australians quite comfortably elect buffoons. Look at Barnett, went to the election after downgrading the states credit rating and on the promise of a 80 billion deficit within 5 years.  Completely profligate, inept, corrupt government got back in with a landslide victory.

he also doesnt pay his TAX...

a good example to set the public dont you think???

cods wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

ian wrote on Mar 25th, 2014 at 5:10pm: The WA voting public are amongst some of the most retarded in Australia, I wouldnt use that poll as a ringing endorsement of Palmer. The man is a buffoon, but west australians quite comfortably elect buffoons. Look at Barnett, went to the election after downgrading the states credit rating and on the promise of a 80 billion deficit within 5 years.  Completely profligate, inept, corrupt government got back in with a landslide victory. he also doesnt pay his TAX... a good example to set the public dont you think???

Really.  Where is your evidence that Clive does not pay his tax?

Has he paid his $6m Carbon Price bill?

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

Has he paid his $6m Carbon Price bill?

He doesn't have one.

It was reported he did.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

It was reported he did.

A company does (and that is under current appeal,) not Clive personally.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

What I like about Clive is his humility.

Yes. Just like Ghandi.

Aussie wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

Looks like PUP is doing okay in the lead-up to the WA Senate (re) election. Click here.

Quote:

based on 247 interviews.

Margin of error is rather high - the 10.5% translates to about 26 people.


Quote:

Clive Palmer's multimillion-dollar advertising splurge ahead of the April 5 Senate election is threatening to wrest a seat from the Liberal Party.

If that happens, that will be the first time that the Liberals have returned less than 3 Senators in WA since 1970.

(1970 - 5 Senators; 1974 - DD; 1975 - DD; 1977 and 1980 - Liberals in office; 1983 - DD; 1984 - 7 Senators elected due to expansion of the Senate; 1987 - DD; 1990 - first election with 6 Senators. 3 Liberals at every election since then.)


Quote:

One in 10 (10.5 per cent) of those interviewed in the past fortnight said they were going to vote for PUP on April 5, compared with 37 per cent for the Liberals, 32 per cent for the ALP and 13.5 per cent for the Greens.

Figures for the Nationals are also significant, around 4%. This can be enough to give the Liberals 3 quotas on preferences ahead of PUP. These figures suggest a swing against the government of about 5% is on.

On these figures, Liberals and ALP - 2 primary quotas each. Greens elect one candidate on ALP preferences. Leftover preferences for Greens and ALP will decide the last seat for the conservative side - PUP or Liberals? Hard to say. Minor party preferences will decide the outcome. If leftover Greens preferences are distributed between the Liberals and PUP, the preference flows will strongly favour PUP.

*Ooops.

Aussie wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 7:44pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 25th, 2014 at 7:37pm: It was reported he did. A company does (and that is under current appeal,) not Clive personally.

dont think those companies do much without piggies say so...and they havent paid their bill.. because he told them not too..

he plans to fix all that once he gets the POWER.. ::) ::)

Clive owes $8.4m for carbon tax
DENNIS SHANAHAN THE AUSTRALIAN FEBRUARY 15, 2014 12:00AM

MINING magnate Clive Palmer is being pursued for $8.4 million for flouting the law on carbon emissions after failing to pay the Clean Energy Regulator carbon tax since it became law.

The new MP for the Queensland seat of Fairfax campaigned against the carbon emission scheme before the election last year and is challenging the carbon tax in the High Court.

Mr Palmer's nickel refinery was hit with a further carbon charge of $2.3m yesterday after he failed to pay a $6.1m charge the federal regulator imposed last June.

The regulator revealed the new charge on Mr Palmer's Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd refinery yesterday as part of its reporting of carbon tax progress payments.

Only four companies have failed to account for thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and did not pay more than $13.5m in charges. There is now an outstanding total in carbon tax payments of just more than $20m.

The other companies -- including Penrice Soda Products, which publicly complained of the impact of the carbon tax on its business -- have all suffered financial difficulties since the tax was introduced on July 1, 2012.

Mr Palmer vowed to refund the carbon tax to hundreds of businesses as a core policy of his Palmer United Party. Its success in the Senate means he will have the power to decide the fate of the carbon tax when the new senators take their place on July 1.

Asked about his private companies when he ran for parliament, he declared the matters were none of the voters' business.

Mr Palmer faces court action if he refuses to pay the annual carbon impost after missing the June 17 deadline last year, which was met by more than 370 other big emitters, and a further deadline of February 3 this year.

Cods, the matter is the subject of litigation....but the point I am making is that Clive personally does not owe the tax....a Company he controls and owns, owes it.

On another subject:

Clive has declined payment as a pollie.  Note the other snouts in the State trough!

Click here.


Quote:

CLIVE Palmer has slammed the latest pay rise for Queensland politicians, revealing he has not taken a cent since being elected to Federal parliament last year. "The whole thing is a cesspool," the Palmer United Party leader said. "It's about them. It's not about the community.'' New pay scales for state parliamentarians have pushed the Premier's wage to $379,562, a jump of $70,000. The Sunshine Coast's five Cabinet members are now on $310,066. The salary for the Speaker Fiona Simpson (Maroochydore), jumps to $287,035, while Nicklin MP Peter Wellington receives $148,848 plus an additional $23,031 in total for his work on three committees. "It's called public service,'' Mr Palmer said. "To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it.

"To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it.

He should be shouting that from the rooftops, but then he'd be accused of chest beating. People are just so fed up with greedy career politicians that are in it for nothing more than to take and take and at the same time telling us all how tough we have to do it.

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

Cods, the matter is the subject of litigation....but the point I am making is that Clive personally does not owe the tax....a Company he controls and owns, owes it. On another subject: Clive has declined payment as a pollie.  Note the other snouts in the State trough! Click here. Quote: CLIVE Palmer has slammed the latest pay rise for Queensland politicians, revealing he has not taken a cent since being elected to Federal parliament last year. "The whole thing is a cesspool," the Palmer United Party leader said. "It's about them. It's not about the community.'' New pay scales for state parliamentarians have pushed the Premier's wage to $379,562, a jump of $70,000. The Sunshine Coast's five Cabinet members are now on $310,066. The salary for the Speaker Fiona Simpson (Maroochydore), jumps to $287,035, while Nicklin MP Peter Wellington receives $148,848 plus an additional $23,031 in total for his work on three committees. "It's called public service,'' Mr Palmer said. "To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it.

I KNOW DARLING.... BUT HE CALLS THE SHOTS.....YOUR AVERAGE ACCOUNTANT WOULD NOT..NOT PAY THE TAX


THATS WHAT I AM SAYING..

he either hasnt got it???..or is not a good taxpayer.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

"To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it. He should be shouting that from the rooftops, but then he'd be accused of chest beating. People are just so fed up with greedy career politicians that are in it for nothing more than to take and take and at the same time telling us all how tough we have to do it.

and I thought you were a fan yr dameship.. ::) ::) ::)

cods wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 5:33pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Cods, the matter is the subject of litigation....but the point I am making is that Clive personally does not owe the tax....a Company he controls and owns, owes it. On another subject: Clive has declined payment as a pollie.  Note the other snouts in the State trough! Click here. Quote: CLIVE Palmer has slammed the latest pay rise for Queensland politicians, revealing he has not taken a cent since being elected to Federal parliament last year. "The whole thing is a cesspool," the Palmer United Party leader said. "It's about them. It's not about the community.'' New pay scales for state parliamentarians have pushed the Premier's wage to $379,562, a jump of $70,000. The Sunshine Coast's five Cabinet members are now on $310,066. The salary for the Speaker Fiona Simpson (Maroochydore), jumps to $287,035, while Nicklin MP Peter Wellington receives $148,848 plus an additional $23,031 in total for his work on three committees. "It's called public service,'' Mr Palmer said. "To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it. I KNOW DARLING.... BUT HE CALLS THE SHOTS.....YOUR AVERAGE ACCOUNTANT WOULD NOT..NOT PAY THE TAX THATS WHAT I AM SAYING.. he either hasnt got it???..or is not a good taxpayer.

It is not his tax to pay.  Please grasp that fact.

Aussie wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 7:44pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 25th, 2014 at 7:37pm: It was reported he did. A company does (and that is under current appeal,) not Clive personally.

The pedant arises!!  A company he owns owes money he is appealing against. And the appeal is like so many other things he does, a delaying tactic and nothing more. He sues more than almost anyone regardless of the case knowing the cost of defence will win the battle for him.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

"To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it. He should be shouting that from the rooftops, but then he'd be accused of chest beating. People are just so fed up with greedy career politicians that are in it for nothing more than to take and take and at the same time telling us all how tough we have to do it.

A billionaire saying that counts for nothing.  When an ordinary person, living off his wife's earnings instead says it, it has meaning. He is giving up small change and nothing else.

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

cods wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 5:33pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Cods, the matter is the subject of litigation....but the point I am making is that Clive personally does not owe the tax....a Company he controls and owns, owes it. On another subject: Clive has declined payment as a pollie.  Note the other snouts in the State trough! Click here. Quote: CLIVE Palmer has slammed the latest pay rise for Queensland politicians, revealing he has not taken a cent since being elected to Federal parliament last year. "The whole thing is a cesspool," the Palmer United Party leader said. "It's about them. It's not about the community.'' New pay scales for state parliamentarians have pushed the Premier's wage to $379,562, a jump of $70,000. The Sunshine Coast's five Cabinet members are now on $310,066. The salary for the Speaker Fiona Simpson (Maroochydore), jumps to $287,035, while Nicklin MP Peter Wellington receives $148,848 plus an additional $23,031 in total for his work on three committees. "It's called public service,'' Mr Palmer said. "To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it. I KNOW DARLING.... BUT HE CALLS THE SHOTS.....YOUR AVERAGE ACCOUNTANT WOULD NOT..NOT PAY THE TAX THATS WHAT I AM SAYING.. he either hasnt got it???..or is not a good taxpayer. It is not his tax to pay.  Please grasp that fact.

factually correctly, but absolutely untruthful.

AS full owner of the company, the $8M affects his net worth by the full $8M.

Quote:

factually correctly, but absolutely untruthful.

Well, feather me duster.  The alleged Newbie says I am factually correct, and at the same time  - absolutely untruthful.

Yay!

:D

I think he also called you a pedant. Which was spot on the money.

jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

I think he also called you a pedant. Which was spot on the money.

Yeas, he did.  But, I am ignoring his abuse.  No need to worry Moderators with that sort of fluff.  He has serious issues with facts, and his own lexicon.  House of Cards soon to crumble.  Of course, he will turn that all around if only he can provide any credible evidence that many commentators predicted the 2010 hung Parliament.  That should be easy given he reckons there were many.

Cheers.

:D

Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 5:25pm: "To get a salary you need to fill in a form and send it in. I refuse to do it. He should be shouting that from the rooftops, but then he'd be accused of chest beating. People are just so fed up with greedy career politicians that are in it for nothing more than to take and take and at the same time telling us all how tough we have to do it. A billionaire saying that counts for nothing.  When an ordinary person, living off his wife's earnings instead says it, it has meaning. He is giving up small change and nothing else.

Perhaps if Clive claimed his salary, and then donated it to a charity I'd give him some kudos. At this point he just sounds fat 'n lazy.

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:10pm: I think he also called you a pedant. Which was spot on the money. Yeas, he did.  But, I am ignoring his abuse.  No need to worry Moderators with that sort of fluff.  He has serious issues with facts, and his own lexicon.  House of Cards soon to crumble.  Of course, he will turn that all around if only he can provide any credible evidence that many commentators predicted the 2010 hung Parliament.  That should be easy given he reckons there were many. Cheers. :D

I've already found that your Google is broken and if you tried searching for results in Australia you might not end up looking like a goose so very very often. Of course, that will be up to you and your attraction to bring a goose whether or not you decide to search in the pertinent region.

jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:29pm: jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:10pm: I think he also called you a pedant. Which was spot on the money. Yeas, he did.  But, I am ignoring his abuse.  No need to worry Moderators with that sort of fluff.  He has serious issues with facts, and his own lexicon.  House of Cards soon to crumble.  Of course, he will turn that all around if only he can provide any credible evidence that many commentators predicted the 2010 hung Parliament.  That should be easy given he reckons there were many. Cheers. :D I've already found that your Google is broken and if you tried searching for results in Australia you might not end up looking like a goose so very very often. Of course, that will be up to you and your attraction to bring a goose whether or not you decide to search in the pertinent region.

You've been here three days....and you are suddenly an expert on how often I 'look like a goose.'

Ho hum.  Another PA asylum seeker.  I'd keep a close eye on this one Mods.

8-)

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

You've been here three days....and you are suddenly an expert on how often I 'look like a goose.'

aussies thats not hard. :)

People are getting twitchy in WA!

Click here.


Quote:

Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten will plead today with the WA public to stick with the coalition and Labor amid fears the Palmer United Party's wall of advertising is wooing over disengaged voters. The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader are in Perth today, with concerns in both major parties about the results in Saturday's Senate re-run election. Internal and public polling suggests PUP's lead candidate Dio Wang, who won a spot in the original contested count of WA's Senate ballots, is collecting enough support to guarantee him a position in the new Senate, which sits from July 1.

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:57pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:29pm: jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:10pm: I think he also called you a pedant. Which was spot on the money. Yeas, he did.  But, I am ignoring his abuse.  No need to worry Moderators with that sort of fluff.  He has serious issues with facts, and his own lexicon.  House of Cards soon to crumble.  Of course, he will turn that all around if only he can provide any credible evidence that many commentators predicted the 2010 hung Parliament.  That should be easy given he reckons there were many. Cheers. :D I've already found that your Google is broken and if you tried searching for results in Australia you might not end up looking like a goose so very very often. Of course, that will be up to you and your attraction to bring a goose whether or not you decide to search in the pertinent region. You've been here three days....and you are suddenly an expert on how often I 'look like a goose.' Ho hum.  Another PA asylum seeker.  I'd keep a close eye on this one Mods. 8-)

I think he's been banned already.

He quickly came back with a sock called Oliver Q.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 3:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 8:11pm: jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:57pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:29pm: jiminy cricket wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:10pm: I think he also called you a pedant. Which was spot on the money. Yeas, he did.  But, I am ignoring his abuse.  No need to worry Moderators with that sort of fluff.  He has serious issues with facts, and his own lexicon.  House of Cards soon to crumble.  Of course, he will turn that all around if only he can provide any credible evidence that many commentators predicted the 2010 hung Parliament.  That should be easy given he reckons there were many. Cheers. :D I've already found that your Google is broken and if you tried searching for results in Australia you might not end up looking like a goose so very very often. Of course, that will be up to you and your attraction to bring a goose whether or not you decide to search in the pertinent region. You've been here three days....and you are suddenly an expert on how often I 'look like a goose.' Ho hum.  Another PA asylum seeker.  I'd keep a close eye on this one Mods. 8-) I think he's been banned already. He quickly came back with a sock called Oliver Q.

Yeas, and I believe jiminy cricket was also a shared account, of the kind I've been expecting to turn up here.  AiA, the Admin. at PA, is an old hand at setting them up, and participating in their use.  I reckon I can name those involved....but one was the permanently banned IQSRLOW.  I won't name the others ~ to protect the guilty.  PA arse-holes ought suffice.

>:(

Aussie wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 3:28pm:

People are getting twitchy in WA! Click here. Quote: Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten will plead today with the WA public to stick with the coalition and Labor amid fears the Palmer United Party's wall of advertising is wooing over disengaged voters. The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader are in Perth today, with concerns in both major parties about the results in Saturday's Senate re-run election. Internal and public polling suggests PUP's lead candidate Dio Wang, who won a spot in the original contested count of WA's Senate ballots, is collecting enough support to guarantee him a position in the new Senate, which sits from July 1.

Labor have little to fear from Palmer. There's likely to be enough of a swing to Labor to put them over two quotas but Labor won't go anywhere near three quotas. Thus, how well PUP polls is largely irrelevant to Labor's chances.

The Liberals would be far more worried about Palmer. They will get two quotas easily, but not three. Even in the original election, the Liberals needed preferences to get a third quota, and with a 5% swing their task is that much harder. Apart from the WA Nationals, the Liberals have few places where they get preferences ahead of PUP.

Truth Seeker has modelled the WA Senate outcome using a Monte Carlo simulation.

Assumptions:
LIB: 37.1%
NAT: 4.5%
ALP: 31.5%
GRN: 12.3%
PUP: 3.5%
OTH: 11.0% (a detailed breakdown for all the minor party groups is in the blog post)

He has assumed only 3.5% vote for PUP which IMO is a bit low given the level of advertising and recent opinion polling.

His findings are interesting.

Very likely (>90% likelihood):
LIB: 3 (3rd Senator with 91% likelihood)
ALP: 2 (100%)
GRN: 1 (93%)

Unlikely:
NAT: 7%
ALP3: 6% (third ALP Senator)
WIKI: 1.2% (Wiki are in group A and would benefit from the donkey vote)
PUP: 0.6%
DEM: 0.5%

On the small chance of electing a third NAT Senator, he states the following: "In terms of a left-right breakdown, note that my modelling does not show NAT being elected when 3 LIB are elected - the NAT is an unlikely substitute for the 3rd LIB Senator."

I'd put your money on "very likely".

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:14pm:

I'd put your money on "very likely".

Yes, it would seem to be a prediction that is close to the mark. The only point of difference I have is that the third right-leaning Senator may not necessarily be a Liberal. If the Liberals and WA Nationals poll less than three quotas between them (possible but I think this is unlikely), the third conservative seat is in doubt.

I rate PUP's chances higher than the meagre 1% or so that the simulation gave because the simulation gave PUP only 3.5% of the vote. This is much less than the 10% or so that PUP has scored in some opinion polls. The Liberals are still likely to return three Senators (this is a change on earlier predictions I have made) but the Nationals and PUP are also in with a chance. If the Greens and ALP poll well and their leftover votes end up being distributed between the Liberals and PUP, PUP will get about 90% of them. Not many parties preferenced the Liberals ahead of PUP.

One thing is clear though. The Senate looks like it is going to return a 3-3 split between conservatives and progressives. This contrasts to the 4 conservatives, 2 progressives result of the election (assuming that Dropolich of the Sports Party was conservative-leaning).

Can't see Abbott or Shorten willing to try this stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyFA4JATkeA&list=PLpN7eaG3505tCisFchYcBvC70jT1nL1IK&feature=share

"The lady said she'd fix it up for me."

Blaaaady hell!

I am hoping the good people of W.A. will be thoroughly turned off by Palmers.bid to BUY their vote..

its so crude and ugly... a bit like him I guess.

good luck W.A...do the right thing dont be BOUGHT your vote isnt for SALE to the one with the most money...

Bam wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:49am:

Truth Seeker has modelled the WA Senate outcome using a Monte Carlo simulation. Assumptions: LIB: 37.1% NAT: 4.5% ALP: 31.5% GRN: 12.3% PUP: 3.5% OTH: 11.0% (a detailed breakdown for all the minor party groups is in the blog post) He has assumed only 3.5% vote for PUP which IMO is a bit low given the level of advertising and recent opinion polling. His findings are interesting. Very likely (>90% likelihood): LIB: 3 (3rd Senator with 91% likelihood) ALP: 2 (100%) GRN: 1 (93%) Unlikely: NAT: 7% ALP3: 6% (third ALP Senator) WIKI: 1.2% (Wiki are in group A and would benefit from the donkey vote) PUP: 0.6% DEM: 0.5% On the small chance of electing a third NAT Senator, he states the following: "In terms of a left-right breakdown, note that my modelling does not show NAT being elected when 3 LIB are elected - the NAT is an unlikely substitute for the 3rd LIB Senator."

I'll take 3 libs if it means Greens get in ahead of PUP.

12%+ is an impressive swing for Greens - especially in WA. Apparently they are getting a boost from the shark cull.

Good election result for the Palmer United Party. Looks like they got a senator in WA.