https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/10155726_617957144959914_1185845095_n.jpg

Go ahead Tony - pull the trigger.

What are you scared of?

Do you really, truly, believe what Politicians say when they are campaigning for an Election? How naive of you!

Nobody believes Politicians and the last thing the majority of the voting population is interested in is another bloody Federal Election.

Get real. 

Regardless of what you think of Tony Abbott, we are stuck with him and his Government for another 3 years.  Get used to it and STFU.

Neferti wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 4:28pm:

Do you really, truly, believe what Politicians say when they are campaigning for an Election? How naive of you! Nobody believes Politicians and the last thing the majority of the voting population is interested in is another bloody Federal Election. Get real.  Regardless of what you think of Tony Abbott, we are stuck with him and his Government for another 3 years.  Get used to it and STFU.

and yet you never failed to criticise Gillard for not keeping her promises .... :D :D :D :D

now who's being naive?

He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament.

John Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

Neferti wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 4:28pm: Do you really, truly, believe what Politicians say when they are campaigning for an Election? How naive of you! Nobody believes Politicians and the last thing the majority of the voting population is interested in is another bloody Federal Election. Get real.  Regardless of what you think of Tony Abbott, we are stuck with him and his Government for another 3 years.  Get used to it and STFU. and yet you never failed to criticise Gillard for not keeping her promises .... :D :D :D :D now who's being naive?

YAWN!

Neferti wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:23am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:26am: Neferti wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 4:28pm: Do you really, truly, believe what Politicians say when they are campaigning for an Election? How naive of you! Nobody believes Politicians and the last thing the majority of the voting population is interested in is another bloody Federal Election. Get real.  Regardless of what you think of Tony Abbott, we are stuck with him and his Government for another 3 years.  Get used to it and STFU. and yet you never failed to criticise Gillard for not keeping her promises .... :D :D :D :D now who's being naive? YAWN!

The word you're looking for is "touché".

crocodile wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament.

I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats.

Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants.

Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate.

crocodile wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament.

He wasn't concerned with any of that when he committed to quickly calling a DD election and all the Liberal supporters here were on the call a DD election band wagon all insisting that he could and would do it.

Looks like the whole conservative ship has changed course.

When the Non libs bought up these arguments (like waiting for the new senate) before the election we were assured that it was all rubbish and Abbott would go well before that happened, the time table was for under 6 months.

Another totally bogus topic...

There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed.
Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year.
So give it up until then eh. :D :D :D

Why is the women basher hesitating? 45.5/54.5 maybe? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

crocodile wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one.

He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture

Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it

He wasnt elected because of carbon tax - he was elected because of his propaganda campaign against gillard (which he hasnt figgered out how to stop so he is still doing it) and the swinging voters have woken up and the rusted ons wont even look.

SOB

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/10155726_617957144959914_1185845095_n.jpg Go ahead Tony - pull the trigger. What are you scared of?

Can someone please inform Sir Pository of all Dumbness and Stupidity that the legislation has to be rejected TWICE and at least THREE MONTHS apart before Tony can call a DD??? Gawd, what a fool you've made of yourself, even if we forget your stupid forum name!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:47am:

Another totally bogus topic... There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed. Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year. So give it up until then eh. :D :D :D

The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration.

Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/10155726_617957144959914_1185845095_n.jpg Go ahead Tony - pull the trigger. What are you scared of?

No need.  WA will save us from the pinkos..... ;D

Punish those Pinkos for not honouring the mandate to scrap the toxic carbon tax.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:27am:

crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it

Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government?

Now "that's" a plummet.... ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:07am:

he is a coward of the highest order.

Although you can call Abbott a lot of things, I don't think you can call him a coward.  To me his actions reek more of unrestrained and unprincipled political opportunism.

Bam wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:37am:

crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate.

Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat?

There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support!

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:58am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government? Now "that's" a plummet.... ::)

The ALP in WA have dropped to 29% while the Libs have risen to 44%.

Very different results in polling when an election is imminent as opposed to an election in 2.5 years time.

I am not aware that the G-G even could decline a valid request for a DD. The G-G acts on the advice of the PM and pretty much never disagrees.  The same is true of legislation which is not legally enacted until the G-G signs it into place which he is constitutionally not required to do.

The G-G would not refuse a constitutionally valid requires for a D-D

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:07am:

There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support!

Not as hysterical as the way the right were carrying on here while Gillard was Prime Minister.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:07am:

Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate. Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat? There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support!

The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month.

Click here.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:21am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am: Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate. Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat? There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support! The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month. Click here.

Thanks for that. Do you know if the bills were identical both times because they have to be for a DD. There has been no media reporting on having a DD trigger so it seems doubtful.  Or perhaps they understand the common-sense  attitude of questioning why any sane PM would go to a DD just a few months before a probably friendly senate? And I think I read somewhere that the complexities of senate voting means that a DD before July 1 is either not constitutional or has significant problems.  Do you know what they are?

Either way, I remember Rudd having TWO separate DD triggers and he used neither and his electoral position was quite positive.  Bob Hawke used a DD in 1984 and lost much of his majority.  I think it spooked further PMs from using a DD except in dire situations of which this most definitely is not one.

Quote:

Do you know if the bills were identical both times because they have to be for a DD.

No, I don't.


Quote:

There has been no media reporting on having a DD trigger so it seems doubtful.  Or perhaps they understand the common-sense  attitude of questioning why any sane PM would go to a DD just a few months before a probably friendly senate?

I have no idea how you conclude the Senate (after this weekend) is going to be more Abbott friendly on carbon tax repeal post July 1, given PUP (holding control there) has already made it quite plain there will be no repeal unless that is retrospective.


Quote:

And I think I read somewhere that the complexities of senate voting means that a DD before July 1 is either not constitutional or has significant problems.  Do you know what they are?

I am aware of nothing (apart from the obvious need for a trigger) which prevents Abbott going before July 1.

But the basher claimed he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, he didn't say he would wait until he had a suckhole senate, did he lie?
I can't remember Rudd stamping his feet and saying he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, got a link B& B?

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:39am:

Quote: Do you know if the bills were identical both times because they have to be for a DD. No, I don't. [quote]There has been no media reporting on having a DD trigger so it seems doubtful.  Or perhaps they understand the common-sense  attitude of questioning why any sane PM would go to a DD just a few months before a probably friendly senate?

I have no idea how you conclude the Senate (after this weekend) is going to be more Abbott friendly on carbon tax repeal post July 1, given PUP (holding control there) has already made it quite plain there will be no repeal unless that is retrospective.


Quote:

And I think I read somewhere that the complexities of senate voting means that a DD before July 1 is either not constitutional or has significant problems.  Do you know what they are?

I am aware of nothing (apart from the obvious need for a trigger) which prevents Abbott going before July 1.[/quote]

Recent polling shows PUP as unlikely to win a WA senate seat.  Their polling has dropped badly and if Palmer has any political nous at all - which is doubtful - he would sense that people are not happy with him threatening to block everything - especially the Carbon Tax Repeal - that is not in his personal financial favour.  The new senate will vote to repeal the DD and if Palmer is as stupid and ignorant as I suspect and votes to reject the repeal, the Abbott has his DD trigger and despite what polls are saying, would win.

People hate the Carbon tax and the even more strongly hate parties and senators that seek to block the clearly expressed will of the people.  Palmer will find himself out of the lower house and no-one in the upper house.

Palmers dilemma is quite simple but I suspect will escape him as subtle things usually do. If he refuses to repeal, he will not get his money back and will continue to pay the tax for the foreseeable future. If he repeals, he will not get his money back. If Abbott goes to a DD, there are two outcomes: Abbott wins and the CT is repealed, he doesn't get his refund. If Labor wins the CT wont be repealed.

Now if you were palmer wouldn't you see that there is no option for a refund - ever - and that his only choice is to repeal or not repeal.

skippy. wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:40am:

But the basher claimed he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, he didn't say he would wait until he had a suckhole senate, did he lie? I can't remember Rudd stamping his feet and saying he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, got a link B& B?

Your invective and shallow responses indicate that history and politics are not things you really understand. I would suggest that most people in the country would not expect him to simply rush off to a DD when a simpler solution was around the corner. And this is why Abbott is PM while you are...

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:58am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government? Now "that's" a plummet.... ::)

I was  referring to the unprecedented fall from grace in polling done during the 100 day "honeymoon" period
I'd assumed all and sundry was aware of those results ?

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:00am:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:39am: Quote: Do you know if the bills were identical both times because they have to be for a DD. No, I don't. [quote]There has been no media reporting on having a DD trigger so it seems doubtful.  Or perhaps they understand the common-sense  attitude of questioning why any sane PM would go to a DD just a few months before a probably friendly senate? I have no idea how you conclude the Senate (after this weekend) is going to be more Abbott friendly on carbon tax repeal post July 1, given PUP (holding control there) has already made it quite plain there will be no repeal unless that is retrospective. [quote]And I think I read somewhere that the complexities of senate voting means that a DD before July 1 is either not constitutional or has significant problems.  Do you know what they are?

I am aware of nothing (apart from the obvious need for a trigger) which prevents Abbott going before July 1.[/quote]

Recent polling shows PUP as unlikely to win a WA senate seat.  Their polling has dropped badly and if Palmer has any political nous at all - which is doubtful - he would sense that people are not happy with him threatening to block everything - especially the Carbon Tax Repeal - that is not in his personal financial favour.  The new senate will vote to repeal the DD and if Palmer is as stupid and ignorant as I suspect and votes to reject the repeal, the Abbott has his DD trigger and despite what polls are saying, would win.

People hate the Carbon tax and the even more strongly hate parties and senators that seek to block the clearly expressed will of the people.  Palmer will find himself out of the lower house and no-one in the upper house.

Palmers dilemma is quite simple but I suspect will escape him as subtle things usually do. If he refuses to repeal, he will not get his money back and will continue to pay the tax for the foreseeable future. If he repeals, he will not get his money back. If Abbott goes to a DD, there are two outcomes: Abbott wins and the CT is repealed, he doesn't get his refund. If Labor wins the CT wont be repealed.

Now if you were palmer wouldn't you see that there is no option for a refund - ever - and that his only choice is to repeal or not repeal.
[/quote]

I don't know where you get your news from but this suggests you are wrong.

Click here.

PUP went to the Sept 2013 with a retrospective repeal of the carbon tax as part of its platform.  PUP (with that Transport bloke) already has the balance of power in the Senate post July 1, and the outcome of this weekend's re-run is not going to change that.

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:58am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government? Now "that's" a plummet.... ::)

It shows how bad the basher is given he has the worst ever polls for a new government. :P

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:27am:

Either way, I remember Rudd having TWO separate DD triggers and he used neither and his electoral position was quite positive.  Bob Hawke used a DD in 1984 and lost much of his majority.  I think it spooked further PMs from using a DD except in dire situations of which this most definitely is not one.

1987 was DD, not 1984.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:02am:

skippy. wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:40am: But the basher claimed he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, he didn't say he would wait until he had a suckhole senate, did he lie? I can't remember Rudd stamping his feet and saying he would go to a DD if he didn't get his way, got a link B& B? Your invective and shallow responses indicate that history and politics are not things you really understand. I would suggest that most people in the country would not expect him to simply rush off to a DD when a simpler solution was around the corner. And this is why Abbott is PM while you are...

I accept your surrender, you obviously have no answer when it is so obvious he lied,thanks.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:08am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:58am: buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government? Now "that's" a plummet.... ::) The ALP in WA have dropped to 29% while the Libs have risen to 44%. Very different results in polling when an election is imminent as opposed to an election in 2.5 years time.

What polling results? A link would be helpful. I can't find any polling results online with these numbers, especially on Poll Bludger.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:15am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:00am: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:39am: Quote: Do you know if the bills were identical both times because they have to be for a DD. No, I don't. [quote]There has been no media reporting on having a DD trigger so it seems doubtful.  Or perhaps they understand the common-sense  attitude of questioning why any sane PM would go to a DD just a few months before a probably friendly senate? I have no idea how you conclude the Senate (after this weekend) is going to be more Abbott friendly on carbon tax repeal post July 1, given PUP (holding control there) has already made it quite plain there will be no repeal unless that is retrospective. [quote]And I think I read somewhere that the complexities of senate voting means that a DD before July 1 is either not constitutional or has significant problems.  Do you know what they are? I am aware of nothing (apart from the obvious need for a trigger) which prevents Abbott going before July 1.

Recent polling shows PUP as unlikely to win a WA senate seat.  Their polling has dropped badly and if Palmer has any political nous at all - which is doubtful - he would sense that people are not happy with him threatening to block everything - especially the Carbon Tax Repeal - that is not in his personal financial favour.  The new senate will vote to repeal the DD and if Palmer is as stupid and ignorant as I suspect and votes to reject the repeal, the Abbott has his DD trigger and despite what polls are saying, would win.

People hate the Carbon tax and the even more strongly hate parties and senators that seek to block the clearly expressed will of the people.  Palmer will find himself out of the lower house and no-one in the upper house.

Palmers dilemma is quite simple but I suspect will escape him as subtle things usually do. If he refuses to repeal, he will not get his money back and will continue to pay the tax for the foreseeable future. If he repeals, he will not get his money back. If Abbott goes to a DD, there are two outcomes: Abbott wins and the CT is repealed, he doesn't get his refund. If Labor wins the CT wont be repealed.

Now if you were palmer wouldn't you see that there is no option for a refund - ever - and that his only choice is to repeal or not repeal.
[/quote]

I don't know where you get your news from but this suggests you are wrong.

Click here.

PUP went to the Sept 2013 with a retrospective repeal of the carbon tax as part of its platform.  PUP (with that Transport bloke) already has the balance of power in the Senate post July 1, and the outcome of this weekend's re-run is not going to change that.
[/quote]

And if you think voters who voted for PUP knew of this policy or even cared than I will just snigger and move on.

My post was about likely outcomes and you seemed to not understand that.  Abbott will not under any circumstances repeal the CT retrospectively.  It would be a political disaster and a legislative and practical nightmare. It quite simply wont happen and to pretend otherwise is naïve in the extreme.

That leaves Palmer with two choice. Continue to pay the Carbon tax or not.  While I have a low opinion of Palmers ethics  - as I do of all bullies - his options are few.

And if it gets taken to a DD the outcome for ABbott is unknown but not for PUP.  they will disappear faster than One Nation.

Now if you were Palmer, what would you do?  the right thing for the country or the right thing for YOU?

Bam wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:34am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:08am: King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:58am: buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:27am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. He'd be a FOOL to go for one - given his government's unprecedented plummet in the polls - THIS early in the picture Mind YOU - I'm hoping he MAY have just enough blue-blood ARROGANCE to go for it Unprecedented??? Have you seem the ALP's plummets in the polls when in government? Now "that's" a plummet.... ::) The ALP in WA have dropped to 29% while the Libs have risen to 44%. Very different results in polling when an election is imminent as opposed to an election in 2.5 years time. What polling results? A link would be helpful. I can't find any polling results online with these numbers, especially on Poll Bludger.

Reported yesterday. It might have been Newspoll and I think I read it in Business Spectator.  Libs up, Labor down by a mile and Greens up slightly and others - including PUP - getting hammered.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:07am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:47am: Another totally bogus topic... There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed. Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year. So give it up until then eh. :D :D :D The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration. Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order.

He can't call a DD yet, you halfwit! The conditions for such a trigger have not been met!  ::)

Bam wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:21am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:27am: Either way, I remember Rudd having TWO separate DD triggers and he used neither and his electoral position was quite positive.  Bob Hawke used a DD in 1984 and lost much of his majority.  I think it spooked further PMs from using a DD except in dire situations of which this most definitely is not one. 1987 was DD, not 1984.

Yes, you are correct. a bit of a brain melt there!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:40am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:07am: Grendel wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:47am: Another totally bogus topic... There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed. Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year. So give it up until then eh. :D :D :D The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration. Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order. He can't call a DD yet, you halfwit! The conditions for such a trigger have not been met!  ::)

I am confused on this issue as some are saying it has been met and yet Ive heard not one single word from the media on it, suggesting that you are right.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:42am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:40am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 9:07am: Grendel wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:47am: Another totally bogus topic... There will be no DD unless they can't get their legislation passed. Well guess what dummies, they won't know about that until after the Senate is reconfigured later in the year. So give it up until then eh. :D :D :D The DD promise was given regardless of the Senate reconfiguration. Like running away from the house last year, he is a coward of the highest order. He can't call a DD yet, you halfwit! The conditions for such a trigger have not been met!  ::) I am confused on this issue as some are saying it has been met and yet Ive heard not one single word from the media on it, suggesting that you are right.

The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently. Abbott must now wait for THREE MONTHS before he can reintroduce that legislation. He cannot reintroduce it in less than three months and by the time three months has gone by, the new Senate will probably be sitting. Regardless, if it is rejected a second time THEN he has the trigger required to call a DD. This nonsense about him being a coward for not calling a DD, etc is absurd in the extreme because the Constitution will not let him even if he wants to right now. So those of you wetting your panties over this, just grow a brain and wait three months, okay? All you're doing is confirming what colossal asshats you lot are!

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:21am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am: Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate. Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat? There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support! The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month. Click here.

A correction Aussie.  your reference was to just ONE bill, not the full CT repeal bills. So I return to my original point that the constitutional requirements for a DD do not exists and will not until mid June, mere weeks before the new senate.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:50am:

The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently.

For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger.

The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:57am:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am: Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate. Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat? There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support! The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month. Click here. A correction Aussie.  your reference was to just ONE bill, not the full CT repeal bills. So I return to my original point that the constitutional requirements for a DD do not exists and will not until mid June, mere weeks before the new senate.

Aussie is a legend at being wrong - a true master!

Bam wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:59am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am: The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently. For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger. The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls.

It has to be rejected TWICE, not ONCE!


The double dissolution provision comes into play if the Senate and House twice fail to agree on a piece of legislation (in section 57 called "a proposed law", and commonly referred to as a "trigger"). The government may use this trigger (or any number of triggers) to recommend the Governor-General dissolve the House and the entire Senate – pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution – and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested.

The conditions stipulated by section 57 of the Constitution are:
- The trigger bill originated in the House of Representatives.
- Three months elapsed between the two rejections of the bill by the Senate ("rejection" in this context can extend to the Senate's failure to pass the bill, or to the Senate passing it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree).
- The second rejection occurred in the same session as the first, or the subsequent session, but no later.

There is no similar provision for resolving deadlocks with respect to bills that have originated in the Senate and are blocked in the House of Representatives.

Though the Constitution refers to the Governor-General doing certain things, it had until the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis been believed that convention required the Governor-General to act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, as the 1975 constitutional crisis demonstrated, the Governor-General is not compelled to follow the Prime Minister's advice. In these cases, he or she must be personally satisfied that the conditions specified in the Constitution apply, and is entitled to seek additional information or advice before coming to a decision.


None of the criteria have been met, therefore Abbott has NO trigger by which to call a DD!

Bam wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:59am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am: The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently. For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger. The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls.

I would like you to cite an authoritative reference to this claim. From my reading, the recent repeal was the first time the group of CT bills had been presented and last years was simply the CEFC bill. Now if I am wrong then please cite evidence of that.  The complete silence of the media on all sides about this supposed DD does tend to support my position that it does not yet exist.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:04pm:

Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am: The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently. For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger. The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls. It has to be rejected TWICE, not ONCE! The double dissolution provision comes into play if the Senate and House twice fail to agree on a piece of legislation (in section 57 called "a proposed law", and commonly referred to as a "trigger"). The government may use this trigger (or any number of triggers) to recommend the Governor-General dissolve the House and the entire Senate – pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution – and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested. The conditions stipulated by section 57 of the Constitution are: - The trigger bill originated in the House of Representatives. - Three months elapsed between the two rejections of the bill by the Senate ("rejection" in this context can extend to the Senate's failure to pass the bill, or to the Senate passing it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree). - The second rejection occurred in the same session as the first, or the subsequent session, but no later. There is no similar provision for resolving deadlocks with respect to bills that have originated in the Senate and are blocked in the House of Representatives. Though the Constitution refers to the Governor-General doing certain things, it had until the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis been believed that convention required the Governor-General to act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, as the 1975 constitutional crisis demonstrated, the Governor-General is not compelled to follow the Prime Minister's advice. In these cases, he or she must be personally satisfied that the conditions specified in the Constitution apply, and is entitled to seek additional information or advice before coming to a decision. None of the criteria have been met, therefore Abbott has NO trigger by which to call a DD!

Your post is generally right but the GG still acts on the PMs advice and on no other.  the 1975 example was very different and extrapolating from that is fraught with difficulty.  a constitutionally valid DD would not be rejected by the GG under any conceivable circumstances.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:07pm:

Bam wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:50am: The legislation to repeal the carbon tax was defeated in the Senate recently. For the second time, IIRC; if so, Abbott has a DD trigger. The point is moot though because he won't use it. Not with a new Senate incoming, and not when he's behind in the polls. I would like you to cite an authoritative reference to this claim. From my reading, the recent repeal was the first time the group of CT bills had been presented and last years was simply the CEFC bill. Now if I am wrong then please cite evidence of that.  The complete silence of the media on all sides about this supposed DD does tend to support my position that it does not yet exist.

The repeal bills for the carbon tax AND mining tax have been rejected once. There needs to be a second rejection for there to be a trigger for a DD.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:59am:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:57am: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am: Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate. Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat? There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support! The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month. Click here. A correction Aussie.  your reference was to just ONE bill, not the full CT repeal bills. So I return to my original point that the constitutional requirements for a DD do not exists and will not until mid June, mere weeks before the new senate. Aussie is a legend at being wrong - a true master!

Did either of you read the link I gave and what I posted, including the caveat?

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:25pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:57am: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:07am: Bam wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 7:37am: crocodile wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 11:08pm: He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament. I doubt Abbott would even consider calling a DD election until he's tried getting the legislation through the new Senate. I also agree that the GG may decline a request for a DD election if a new Senate has yet to take their seats. Abbott insists on demanding his way or nothing. All too often he's going to get nothing. He should learn to negotiate, then he may not get all of what he wants but he may get some of what he wants. Australians won't long tolerate a Prime Minister that cannot negotiate. Regardless of all the carry-on, the Constitution requires the legislation to be presented twice, 90 days apart.  Until that has happened - in about 80 days time - the issue is moot.  And from a practical standpoint, why would anyone in their right mind call a DD election literally days before a new and more friendly senate took its seat? There seems to a pretty hysterical response by some on here to a situation that has not even arisen yet about an action that the voters themselves support! The trigger can be pulled now, unless, of course, Abbott did not re-present this one last month. Click here. A correction Aussie.  your reference was to just ONE bill, not the full CT repeal bills. So I return to my original point that the constitutional requirements for a DD do not exists and will not until mid June, mere weeks before the new senate. Aussie is a legend at being wrong - a true master! Did either of you read the link I gave and what I posted, including the caveat?

"The first bill of the package was voted down on Tuesday when Labor and Greens joined forces to reject a bill to scrap the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) after a debate lasting more than 10 hours." - This was the CEFC, NOT the carbon tax legislation. Therefore, Abbott has no trigger for calling a DD. Do you ever use your brain, or even have one?

"The first Bill of the package...."

If that said, same first Bill was presented in March, 2014 to the Senate (and it is logical to assume it was) then, Abbott now has the trigger if he wants it.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:00pm:

"The first Bill of the package...." If that said, same first Bill was presented in March, 2014 to the Senate (and it is logical to assume it was) then, Abbott now has the trigger if he wants it.

That is completely wrong.  the legislation has to be identical in every way and rejected twice 90 days apart.  Even a change in any of the wording invalidates it.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/10155726_617957144959914_1185845095_n.jpg Go ahead Tony - pull the trigger. It's rude to talk about your suppositories, mate. Some things should not be brought up. What are you scared of?

crocodile wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

He won't seek one this term. He cannot demand one anyway. He may only request one. With a new senate about to be sworn in around 3 months from now it is extremely unlikely that the Governor General will grant a dissolution of parliament.

A double dissolution can't just be given on demand. However, if the leftoids and the green vermin keep rejecting that for which Abbott was given a mandate, he can ask the GG to dissolve both houses of parliament - as John Kerr d id in 1975.

Nothing to do with a promise - leftoid!

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 2:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: "The first Bill of the package...." If that said, same first Bill was presented in March, 2014 to the Senate (and it is logical to assume it was) then, Abbott now has the trigger if he wants it. That is completely wrong.  the legislation has to be identical in every way and rejected twice 90 days apart.  Even a change in any of the wording invalidates it.

Was the Bill, rejected in December, part of the package rejected in March, and was it exactly the same Bill?

Hence my caveat, which you seem to be ignoring for some reason.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:22pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 2:38pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: "The first Bill of the package...." If that said, same first Bill was presented in March, 2014 to the Senate (and it is logical to assume it was) then, Abbott now has the trigger if he wants it. That is completely wrong.  the legislation has to be identical in every way and rejected twice 90 days apart.  Even a change in any of the wording invalidates it. Was the Bill, rejected in December, part of the package rejected in March, and was it exactly the same Bill? Hence my caveat, which you seem to be ignoring for some reason.

IM not ignoring it at all and have answered it.  It appears extremely obvious that a DD trigger does not exist as there has been zero media discussion of it.  Don't you think something of that nature and implication would arouse a bit of media attention?  Just get over it.  There is no DD trigger and this entire thread is just another 'hate Abbott' thread with the usual degree of value and intelligence ie none.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:22pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 2:38pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: "The first Bill of the package...." If that said, same first Bill was presented in March, 2014 to the Senate (and it is logical to assume it was) then, Abbott now has the trigger if he wants it. That is completely wrong.  the legislation has to be identical in every way and rejected twice 90 days apart.  Even a change in any of the wording invalidates it. Was the Bill, rejected in December, part of the package rejected in March, and was it exactly the same Bill? Hence my caveat, which you seem to be ignoring for some reason. IM not ignoring it at all and have answered it.  It appears extremely obvious that a DD trigger does not exist as there has been zero media discussion of it.  Don't you think something of that nature and implication would arouse a bit of media attention?  Just get over it.  There is no DD trigger and this entire thread is just another 'hate Abbott' thread with the usual degree of value and intelligence ie none.

I guess that means Abbott was careful not to re-present that December 2013 Bill in the same form (or maybe even at all,) in March, 2014 ~ to deliberately ensure he avoided establishing a trigger.  That is pretty well (cynically) stage managed, don't you reckon? 

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:36pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:22pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 2:38pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: "The first Bill of the package...." If that said, same first Bill was presented in March, 2014 to the Senate (and it is logical to assume it was) then, Abbott now has the trigger if he wants it. That is completely wrong.  the legislation has to be identical in every way and rejected twice 90 days apart.  Even a change in any of the wording invalidates it. Was the Bill, rejected in December, part of the package rejected in March, and was it exactly the same Bill? Hence my caveat, which you seem to be ignoring for some reason. IM not ignoring it at all and have answered it.  It appears extremely obvious that a DD trigger does not exist as there has been zero media discussion of it.  Don't you think something of that nature and implication would arouse a bit of media attention?  Just get over it.  There is no DD trigger and this entire thread is just another 'hate Abbott' thread with the usual degree of value and intelligence ie none. I guess that means Abbott was careful not to re-present that December 2013 Bill in the same form (or maybe even at all,) in March, 2014 ~ to deliberately ensure he avoided establishing a trigger.  That is pretty well (cynically) stage managed, don't you reckon?

The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument.

But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:46pm:

I guess that means Abbott was careful not to re-present that December 2013 Bill in the same form (or maybe even at all,) in March, 2014 ~ to deliberately ensure he avoided establishing a trigger.  That is pretty well (cynically) stage managed, don't you reckon?

I told ya Abbott is a coward.

He could have easily called a DD by now if he wanted to.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:46pm: I guess that means Abbott was careful not to re-present that December 2013 Bill in the same form (or maybe even at all,) in March, 2014 ~ to deliberately ensure he avoided establishing a trigger.  That is pretty well (cynically) stage managed, don't you reckon?  I told ya Abbott is a coward. He could have easily called a DD by now if he wanted to.

Why would he do that?  Why would anyone in any circumstance go spoilng for a fight that cannot be won? Labor and the Greens will NEVER repeal the Carbon Tax so even presenting it once was simply to make a political point which will haunt labor next election.  The real action is in the next senate where Labor and Greens do not hold a majority.  A clever PM such as Abbott would be planning the repeal then. Only a stupid person would do what you are suggesting.

And before you go on your predictable rant, it is not a breach of electoral promise either.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:46pm: I guess that means Abbott was careful not to re-present that December 2013 Bill in the same form (or maybe even at all,) in March, 2014 ~ to deliberately ensure he avoided establishing a trigger.  That is pretty well (cynically) stage managed, don't you reckon?  I told ya Abbott is a coward. He could have easily called a DD by now if he wanted to.

If you are looking for cowards look no further than Kevin Rudd who had no less than TWO DD triggers and held a comfortable lead in the polls and still failed to use them. Mind you, the man stood for absolutely nothing beyond his own ego.

Quote:

The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been.

You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:10pm:

Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation.

That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case.

And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:10pm: Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation. That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case. And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly.

What DD promise?

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:30pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:10pm: Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation. That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case. And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly. What DD promise?

excuse me...????? I couldn't mean the promise that this entire thread - which you have been heavily engaged in - is based upon??

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:30pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:10pm: Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation. That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case. And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly. What DD promise? excuse me...????? I couldn't mean the promise that this entire thread - which you have been heavily engaged in - is based upon??

I'm just seeking clarity here.  So ~  you obviously accept there was an Abbott DD promise pre the 2013 election on carbon tax repeal.  Yes or no.

(No big deal Mr B & B.  I'm just making sure I have understood you correctly.)

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:45pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:30pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:10pm: Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation. That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case. And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly. What DD promise? excuse me...????? I couldn't mean the promise that this entire thread - which you have been heavily engaged in - is based upon?? I'm just seeking clarity here.  So ~  you obviously accept there was an Abbott DD promise pre the 2013 election on carbon tax repeal.  Yes or no. (No big deal Mr B & B.  I'm just making sure I have understood you correctly.)

Oh good grief. The comment was made repeatedly and in daylight. Maybe that confuses the political biased and daft souls on here, but not me.

I must admit though that I almost relish the opportunity to witness the inevitable faux-cries of 'liar' from the Labor supporters if he didn't while completely forgetting the Carbon Tax lie. It would be fun just to watch the various hypocrites in full-flight!

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:52pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:45pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:30pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:10pm: Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation. That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case. And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly. What DD promise? excuse me...????? I couldn't mean the promise that this entire thread - which you have been heavily engaged in - is based upon?? I'm just seeking clarity here.  So ~  you obviously accept there was an Abbott DD promise pre the 2013 election on carbon tax repeal.  Yes or no. (No big deal Mr B & B.  I'm just making sure I have understood you correctly.) Oh good grief. The comment was made repeatedly and in daylight. Maybe that confuses the political biased and daft souls on here, but not me. I must admit though that I almost relish the opportunity to witness the inevitable faux-cries of 'liar' from the Labor supporters if he didn't while completely forgetting the Carbon Tax lie. It would be fun just to watch the various hypocrites in full-flight!

Okay, settle down.  You agree there was an Abbott promised DD if he did not get his carbon tax repeal through.  Jolly good.  Now we have that set in concrete, what was it you were referring to when you posted this, in this Thread, today:


Quote:

And before you go on your predictable rant, it is not a breach of electoral promise either.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 5:00pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:52pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:45pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:34pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:30pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:10pm: Quote: The cynicism was yours and horribly un-informed as well. the CEFC bill was sent early to assist with budget planning as it is a major financial instrument. But the point remains that there is no DD trigger and never has been. You do not know that for certain and neither do I as we do not know if the December 2013 Bill was presented again in identical fashion in March, 2014.  To take up your logic which is....because there is no schmenia clamour there is no trigger.....the only reason for that is ~ Abbott ensured one would not be created, by cowardly not re-presenting that 2013 Bill or altering it at 2014 re-presentation. That is an argument simply full of holes.  Given the DD promise, the media would be full of articles about it.  Do you think the ALP with its current good polls would not be mentioning it? There has been NO discussion of a trigger at all by anyone thus pretty much proving the case. And Abbott choosing to wait until the next senate is not cowardice; it is common sense. There is zero point in firing all your ammunition - half of it at yourself when the war is ending shortly. What DD promise? excuse me...????? I couldn't mean the promise that this entire thread - which you have been heavily engaged in - is based upon?? I'm just seeking clarity here.  So ~  you obviously accept there was an Abbott DD promise pre the 2013 election on carbon tax repeal.  Yes or no. (No big deal Mr B & B.  I'm just making sure I have understood you correctly.) Oh good grief. The comment was made repeatedly and in daylight. Maybe that confuses the political biased and daft souls on here, but not me. I must admit though that I almost relish the opportunity to witness the inevitable faux-cries of 'liar' from the Labor supporters if he didn't while completely forgetting the Carbon Tax lie. It would be fun just to watch the various hypocrites in full-flight! Okay, settle down.  You agree there was an Abbott promised DD if he did not get his carbon tax repeal through.  Jolly good.  Now we have that set in concrete, what was it you were referring to when you posted this, in this Thread, today: [quote]And before you go on your predictable rant, it is not a breach of electoral promise either.

[/quote]

I have fouroptions to answer here. I could
1) be honest
2) be greggary
3) be Kat
4) be a PUP supporter

okay...
1) yes, I was uninformed and wrong and probably because it was such a low agenda item in the election. Im pretty sure I don't know all election promises for every party and nor do you
2) be greggary and posta picture and hope no one notices how I was owned
3) be Kat and simply abuse
4) be a PUP supporter and somehow construe this as a massive support of the PUP position. No one has ever accused Palmer or his supporters of political brilliance. Look at the rugby guy and the motoring enthusiast senators. They given guide dogs to help them find their seats.

Or you could explain how at 2.54 pm today you said:


Quote:

....not an election promise.

And at 3.16 pm today you said:


Quote:

..given the DD promise,

......and you eloquently told us how widely the DD promise was reported.

Turn it up.  There is something very suss about that sort of wild 180 degree contradiction.  You would not be sharing that account, would you?

:)