The Australian Greens say Palmer United Party senators should abstain from voting on the carbon tax repeal bills because of a conflict of interest.

PUP leader and businessman Clive Palmer abstained from the vote on the bills in the lower house because of a possible conflict of interest over his mining firms, which are impacted by the tax.

His party's senators Glenn Lazarus from Queensland and Tasmania's Jacqui Lambie, and possibly a third in Western Australia after this weekend's election, will have a crucial vote in the upper house.

Mr Palmer says the carbon tax repeal should be made retrospective, which would financially benefit his companies.

"Surely his two senators cannot vote to personally and directly financially advantage the leader of the political party to the tune of multi-millions," Greens leader Senator Christine Milne told the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday.

"If it's good enough for him to abstain in the House, then it is good enough for them to abstain in the Senate."

She said if this did not occur it would set a precedent for corporations to use their profits to elect senators and MPs to change laws that adversely affect them.

"Forget the national interest - it would be democracy for sale," Senator Milne said.

One of Mr Palmer's companies Queensland Nickel reportedly owes more than $8.4 million in carbon tax liabilities with a potential penalty of more than $35 million if it is not paid on time.


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/01/no-vote-palmer-senators-tax-milne


Should PUP Senators vote for financial gain for Palmer ... or should they abstain from the vote?

poll

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 2:39pm:

The Australian Greens say Palmer United Party senators should abstain from voting on the carbon tax repeal bills because of a conflict of interest. PUP leader and businessman Clive Palmer abstained from the vote on the bills in the lower house because of a possible conflict of interest over his mining firms, which are impacted by the tax. His party's senators Glenn Lazarus from Queensland and Tasmania's Jacqui Lambie, and possibly a third in Western Australia after this weekend's election, will have a crucial vote in the upper house.

Yeas, they will have a crucial vote.


Quote:

Mr Palmer says the carbon tax repeal should be made retrospective, which would financially benefit his companies. "Surely his two senators cannot vote to personally and directly financially advantage the leader of the political party to the tune of multi-millions," Greens leader Senator Christine Milne told the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday. "If it's good enough for him to abstain in the House, then it is good enough for them to abstain in the Senate."

Nah.  Palmer has a clear personal and material conflict of interest, and that is why he abstained in the HoR.  Neither Lazarus nor Lambi have any personal or material interest in the matter, and if they did not vote, they would be disenfranchising those who voted for PUP.


Quote:

She said if this did not occur it would set a precedent for corporations to use their profits to elect senators and MPs to change laws that adversely affect them. "Forget the national interest - it would be democracy for sale," Senator Milne said.

What the hell does she think we have now, with all the money the Libs and Labor throw at elections, and campaigns?  Money can buy you advertising, but the influence of people like Murdoch is far greater with his many media weapons.


Quote:

One of Mr Palmer's companies Queensland Nickel reportedly owes more than $8.4 million in carbon tax liabilities with a potential penalty of more than $35 million if it is not paid on time.

Bloody hell, every time I see this issue raised, the disputed alleged debt changes.  The matter is the subject of litigation, so let's wait to see the outcome before we shoot our mouths off

Further, on the issue of what PUP Senators ought do.  It really is quite simple.  It is PUP Policy taken to the 2013 Election that a repeal of the carbon tax had to be retrospective.  Lazarus and Lambi were elected on that Policy.  When they vote, they do so in accordance with the wishes of those who supported them in the well informed knowledge that a repeal would be made retrospective.  So.....for those who embrace the 'mandate' argument, Lazarus and Lambi have one from their supporters who put them there.

Abbott has, for three years, been telling us all how this is a bad tax, and that the tax must be axed.  If it was bad from day dot, as Abbott says, then when it is repealed, it ought be back-dated to when it became 'toxic' and 'bad' ~ day one, according to Abbott.

The closest analogy I can come up with us this.  If the High Court strikes down legislation as unconstitutional, that striking down does not take effect from the day the judgement is delivered, and dates back to day one minus a nano-second.  It is a nullity....it never existed.

An abstention is as good as a vote of no. The senate requires 39 votes for legislation to pass and without PUP will not occur.

I am sure even Palmer (we hope) will be able to see through that.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:16pm:

An abstention is as good as a vote of no. The senate requires 39 votes for legislation to pass and without PUP will not occur. I am sure even Palmer (we hope) will be able to see through that.

There is zero reason for Lazarus, Lambi and the possible WA person to abstain.  They are obligated to their supporters to vote in accordance with their published Policy document.

Another aspect of PUPs calculation would be can they increase their power via a DD.

If they can then forcing Abbott to a DD is their best path.

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:25pm:

Another aspect of PUPs calculation would be can they increase their power via a DD. If they can then forcing Abbott to a DD is their best path.

I reckon it is inevitable there will be a DD*.  The post July 1 Senate will still be opposed to Abbott on carbon tax repeal, as he presently proposes it.

*Of course, Abbott could fail to keep his promise about the matter.

Palmer needs to get through his obviously very thick head that retrospectivity is an absolute no go. It wont happen. Ever.  it would be a logistical nightmare to implement unless all he want is companies paid their CT back with no attempt to reimburse customers who paid it. And if Abbott did that, his political fortunes would be toast. Can you imagine the outcry if he simply gave companies billions of dollars back with no demand to reimburse?

Retrospectivity is a complete 100% no go. So what does palmer do then? Well, logic and commonsense would dictate negotiation on the actual negotiables, but Clive isn't exactly renowned for negotiation. So we end up keeping the Carbon Tax and how does that play into Palmer and PUP's best interest?

It makes no sense for PUP to oppose the CT repeal as it stands. They have everything to lose and nothing at all to gain.  They could actually increase their vote by repealing but if they oppose, they will be dead meat at the next election.

And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months.

There will be no double dissolution and PUP will vote to repeal the carbon tax.

Clear?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:49pm:

There will be no double dissolution and PUP will vote to repeal the carbon tax. Clear?

That is my expectation too.  Probably introduce it on day one to confound and confuse the PUP amateurs especially the motorsports guy who has already demonstrated he is well out of his depth.

If the carbon levy is as bad on the economy as Abbott makes out then retrospective repeal means massive mining investment from the repealed cash. And that means jobs.


If Abbott doesn't agree with PUPs demands then Abbott is anti the economy and anti jobs ... unless Abbott has lied all this time and the carbon levy isn't as bad as he has made out.

PUP has everything to gain from screwing abbott and we know Palmer is looking for revenge.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:50pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:49pm: There will be no double dissolution and PUP will vote to repeal the carbon tax. Clear? That is my expectation too.  Probably introduce it on day one to confound and confuse the PUP amateurs especially the motorsports guy who has already demonstrated he is well out of his depth.

You mean the guy under the PUP sign?

---

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Palmer needs to get through his obviously very thick head that retrospectivity is an absolute no go. It wont happen. Ever.  it would be a logistical nightmare to implement unless all he want is companies paid their CT back with no attempt to reimburse customers who paid it. And if Abbott did that, his political fortunes would be toast. Can you imagine the outcry if he simply gave companies billions of dollars back with no demand to reimburse? Retrospectivity is a complete 100% no go. So what does palmer do then? Well, logic and commonsense would dictate negotiation on the actual negotiables, but Clive isn't exactly renowned for negotiation. So we end up keeping the Carbon Tax and how does that play into Palmer and PUP's best interest? It makes no sense for PUP to oppose the CT repeal as it stands. They have everything to lose and nothing at all to gain.  They could actually increase their vote by repealing but if they oppose, they will be dead meat at the next election. And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months.

Yeas, all of that.  But, let's see if the participants play the cards they have been dealt and abide by their pre-election promises, and policies.  That is the game I am interested in.

Ya see, Gillard presented pre the 2010 election as though she was about to be dealt four aces, hence her bold statement about the carbon tax.......yet, as it turned out, she was given a dud hand, as was Abbott.  The game changed, and she had to fold, or lose the entire 'guts.'

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:51pm:

If the carbon levy is as bad on the economy as Abbott makes out then retrospective repeal means massive mining investment from the repealed cash. And that means jobs. If Abbott doesn't agree with PUPs demands then Abbott is anti the economy and anti jobs ... unless Abbott has lied all this time and the carbon levy isn't as bad as he has made out. PUP has everything to gain from screwing abbott and we know Palmer is looking for revenge.

There is so much illogical posturing and blatant nonsense in that as to question your thought processes. Have you ever debated on point, head to head with anyone before?

Really, Abbott should just call Palmer's bluff - goes for both his shenanigans with the mining tax orphan payment thing, and the carbon tax. Tell him straight up: "we won't give one inch of concessions - because we know you want these taxes repealed. Oppose if you dare". Palmer will have no choice but to agree - and in the process prove that he is all bluster and no substance.

Abbott could destroy Palmer if he plays his cards right.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:49pm:

There will be no double dissolution and PUP will vote to repeal the carbon tax. Clear?

Perhaps.....and I expect the PUP electorates of Faifax, Qld, Tassie and possibly WA (see after this weekend) to benefit greatly.  PUP will not give those votes away lightly.  It'll cost Abbott, and Clive might well deliver a substantial bone for the Sunshine Coast (of which his seat Fairfax is part) none of his LNP predecessors here bothered to.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:57pm:

Really, Abbott should just call Palmer's bluff - goes for both his shenanigans with the mining tax orphan payment thing, and the carbon tax. Tell him straight up: "we won't give one inch of concessions - because we know you want these taxes repealed. Oppose if you dare". Palmer will have no choice but to agree - and in the process prove that he is all bluster and no substance. Abbott could destroy Palmer if he plays his cards right.

Polls are funny things. While the federal polls say Abbot is in trouble we get a genuine measurement this weekend in WA. If Labor does as badly as the polls predict then Abbott may be emboldened to repeat his thread of a DD. If PUP ends up forcing a DD his party will be destroyed. 

What if polling shows people will support Abbott in his fight with PUP? The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal.

Abbott has the advice of Howard in the background who is about as wiley and adversary as you can find while Palmer is the absolute opposite.

Interesting days but I still believe the repeal will go ahead.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:49pm: There will be no double dissolution and PUP will vote to repeal the carbon tax. Clear? Perhaps.....and I expect the PUP electorates of Faifax, Qld, Tassie and possibly WA (see after this weekend) to benefit greatly.  PUP will not give those votes away lightly.  It'll cost Abbott, and Clive might well deliver a substantial bone for the Sunshine Coast (of which his seat Fairfax is part) none of his LNP predecessors here bothered to.

I think your beliefs are postulated on the assumption that Palmer is being altruistic in his political foray. That needs to be proven and to date, he hasn't demonstrated much of that.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:57pm:

____ wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:51pm: If the carbon levy is as bad on the economy as Abbott makes out then retrospective repeal means massive mining investment from the repealed cash. And that means jobs. If Abbott doesn't agree with PUPs demands then Abbott is anti the economy and anti jobs ... unless Abbott has lied all this time and the carbon levy isn't as bad as he has made out. PUP has everything to gain from screwing abbott and we know Palmer is looking for revenge. There is so much illogical posturing and blatant nonsense in that as to question your thought processes. Have you ever debated on point, head to head with anyone before?

Abbott is being outflanked by Palmer over the carbon levy.

If the carbon levy is bad then it should be all paid back to struggling miners so they can invest it into a new mining boom.

Anything less and Abbott exposes himself as a liar and a con. So how important is Abbott's election promise on repealing the carbon levy. Enough to sink the spin that we have a budget emergency?

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:57pm: Really, Abbott should just call Palmer's bluff - goes for both his shenanigans with the mining tax orphan payment thing, and the carbon tax. Tell him straight up: "we won't give one inch of concessions - because we know you want these taxes repealed. Oppose if you dare". Palmer will have no choice but to agree - and in the process prove that he is all bluster and no substance. Abbott could destroy Palmer if he plays his cards right. Polls are funny things. While the federal polls say Abbot is in trouble we get a genuine measurement this weekend in WA. If Labor does as badly as the polls predict then Abbott may be emboldened to repeat his thread of a DD. If PUP ends up forcing a DD his party will be destroyed.  What if polling shows people will support Abbott in his fight with PUP? The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. Abbott has the advice of Howard in the background who is about as wiley and adversary as you can find while Palmer is the absolute opposite. Interesting days but I still believe the repeal will go ahead.

Do you have any links to these alleged Polls?  Please back that claim up.

Quote:

The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal.

The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.)

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:16pm: An abstention is as good as a vote of no. The senate requires 39 votes for legislation to pass and without PUP will not occur. I am sure even Palmer (we hope) will be able to see through that. There is zero reason for Lazarus, Lambi and the possible WA person to abstain.  They are obligated to their supporters to vote in accordance with their published Policy document.

this is what I dont understand    he can keep bleating about what he will vote for/..

yet we are told he cannot vote on anything that he has an interest in!!! yet those who have been elected to the senate can do so????...

isnt their some law that says no that cannot happen...seems like he would get a bite of the cherry both ways in that respect....as he only has one vote.. yet he has 3  in the senate..

sorry but I dont think people read the fine print...like he will vote for the repeal of CARBON TAX>..[see even he knows they have a mandate.]. he knows thats what people want.

but ONLY IF ITS PAID BACK.....

did they really read that part?...

do they understand its all been spent and will have to be BORROWED...

and in the long run that means they will be paying the refund... ::) ::)


it wont come out of gillards retirement fund thats for sure.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:24pm:

Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.)

you wish..... I cant think of one person who wants shorty as PM.... oops apart from the rusted on on here... they never did have any brains.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:08pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:57pm: Really, Abbott should just call Palmer's bluff - goes for both his shenanigans with the mining tax orphan payment thing, and the carbon tax. Tell him straight up: "we won't give one inch of concessions - because we know you want these taxes repealed. Oppose if you dare". Palmer will have no choice but to agree - and in the process prove that he is all bluster and no substance. Abbott could destroy Palmer if he plays his cards right. Polls are funny things. While the federal polls say Abbot is in trouble we get a genuine measurement this weekend in WA. If Labor does as badly as the polls predict then Abbott may be emboldened to repeat his thread of a DD. If PUP ends up forcing a DD his party will be destroyed.  What if polling shows people will support Abbott in his fight with PUP? The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. Abbott has the advice of Howard in the background who is about as wiley and adversary as you can find while Palmer is the absolute opposite. Interesting days but I still believe the repeal will go ahead. Do you have any links to these alleged Polls?  Please back that claim up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberals-rebound-in-the-west-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226869270433#

I understand your confusion. The poll was a 'real long time ago'.

Yesterday.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:24pm:

Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.)

So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful?

I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical.

Quote:

And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months.

Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers.

crocodile wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:35pm:

Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers.

Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated.

I've made your link to one of Murdoch's schmedia weapons 'live.'

Click here.

As you can see, it is a pay to look piece....and I am not about to hand Murdoch a brass razoo.


Quote:

So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful?

Don't you remember what you post?  You said that anyone standing in the way of a repeal was unpopular.  The Polls prove otherwise, given that the ALP (yesterday) was opposing the repeal........and (yesterday) they were more popular than the LNP.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:24pm: Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.) So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful? I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical.

It's not PUP opposing the repeal, it will be the Libs.

Abbott wants a repeal lite ... PUP a full repeal.

Why is Abbott limp wristed over repealing the carbon levy.

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:43pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:24pm: Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.) So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful? I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical. It's not PUP opposing the repeal, it will be the Libs. Abbott wants a repeal lite ... PUP a full repeal. Why is Abbott limp wristed over repealing the carbon levy.

That doesn't make any sense to anyone. Why don't you stick to the same topic as the rest of us and avoid such excursions into La-la land.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:35pm: Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers. Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated.

Nah.  History is not entirely on your side there.

Click here.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:49pm:

____ wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:43pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:24pm: Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.) So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful? I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical. It's not PUP opposing the repeal, it will be the Libs. Abbott wants a repeal lite ... PUP a full repeal. Why is Abbott limp wristed over repealing the carbon levy. That doesn't make any sense to anyone. Why don't you stick to the same topic as the rest of us and avoid such excursions into La-la land.

When where you voted spokesperson for the everyone.

Libs are forwarding an agenda of repeal lite and PUP are positioning to undermine the Libs.

By opposing PUPs full repeal, it shows Abbott's wanted repeal is not required and is just a political stunt.

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:40pm: crocodile wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:35pm: Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers. Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated. Nah.  History is not entirely on your side there. Click here.

There is too little history on which to make many certain outcome predictions.

in 1987 the re-election of the hawke govt was not because of the australia card - which was very unpopular - but because of Joh and is incessant ego and fiddling.

1983 was Fraser being foolish and going early for an election he was never going to win even against Bill Hayden.

1975 is a precedent for nothing.

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:56pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:43pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:24pm: Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.) So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful? I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical. It's not PUP opposing the repeal, it will be the Libs. Abbott wants a repeal lite ... PUP a full repeal. Why is Abbott limp wristed over repealing the carbon levy. That doesn't make any sense to anyone. Why don't you stick to the same topic as the rest of us and avoid such excursions into La-la land. When where you voted spokesperson for the everyone. Libs are forwarding an agenda of repeal lite and PUP are positioning to undermine the Libs. By opposing PUPs full repeal, it shows Abbott's wanted repeal is not required and is just a political stunt.

your concept of 'full repeal' is absurd which is why your entire post was also thus. Did the repeal of Workchoices mean all employers had to make alterations for 3 years of salaries?  Stick to the topic and try and stay in the same universe as the rest of us.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:51pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:40pm: crocodile wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:35pm: Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers. Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated. Nah.  History is not entirely on your side there. Click here. There is too little history on which to make many certain outcome predictions. in 1987 the re-election of the hawke govt was not because of the australia card - which was very unpopular - but because of Joh and is incessant ego and fiddling. 1983 was Fraser being foolish and going early for an election he was never going to win even against Bill Hayden. 1975 is a precedent for nothing.

True, but that did not prevent you posting this:


Quote:

Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.

Mr B & B.....you seem to forget what you have said only hours before you contradict yourself.  There has only been six DD elections, and the outcomes do not conclusively support your proposition.

This is very confusing for Members. 

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:51pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:40pm: crocodile wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:35pm: Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers. Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated. Nah.  History is not entirely on your side there. Click here. There is too little history on which to make many certain outcome predictions. in 1987 the re-election of the hawke govt was not because of the australia card - which was very unpopular - but because of Joh and is incessant ego and fiddling. 1983 was Fraser being foolish and going early for an election he was never going to win even against Bill Hayden. 1975 is a precedent for nothing.

There is not a lot of history to go on. There is also not enough history to claim "Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored."

I could be wrong but I can't recall a government being returned with an increased majority after a DD so taking umbrage at having their wishes ignored doesn't seem a forgone conclusion.

I still see downside risks to Abbott calling a DD hoping for a friendlier senate. That half a quota conundrum is hard to ignore.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:59pm:

____ wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:56pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:43pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:24pm: Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.) So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful? I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical. It's not PUP opposing the repeal, it will be the Libs. Abbott wants a repeal lite ... PUP a full repeal. Why is Abbott limp wristed over repealing the carbon levy. That doesn't make any sense to anyone. Why don't you stick to the same topic as the rest of us and avoid such excursions into La-la land. When where you voted spokesperson for the everyone. Libs are forwarding an agenda of repeal lite and PUP are positioning to undermine the Libs. By opposing PUPs full repeal, it shows Abbott's wanted repeal is not required and is just a political stunt. your concept of 'full repeal' is absurd which is why your entire post was also thus. Did the repeal of Workchoices mean all employers had to make alterations for 3 years of salaries?  Stick to the topic and try and stay in the same universe as the rest of us.

PUP is now in position to wedge Abbott on repealing the carbon levy and only the ignorant would deny the likeliness of Palmer to tap this wedge to it's fullest.

In a DD, abbott would be flatfooted with Palmer demanding a full repeal of the carbon levy and Greens demanding a constructive approach to AGW. Abbott's message would be blunted and that will cost the coalition.

It will be a disadvantage for abbott to go to a DD and abbott caving to PUP is a more likely result.

The next question would be how will abbott fund a full repeal?

Aussie wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 5:06pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:57pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:51pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:40pm: crocodile wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:35pm: Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers. Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated. Nah.  History is not entirely on your side there. Click here. There is too little history on which to make many certain outcome predictions. in 1987 the re-election of the hawke govt was not because of the australia card - which was very unpopular - but because of Joh and is incessant ego and fiddling. 1983 was Fraser being foolish and going early for an election he was never going to win even against Bill Hayden. 1975 is a precedent for nothing. True, but that did not prevent you posting this: [quote]Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.

Mr B & B.....you seem to forget what you have said only hours before you contradict yourself.  There has only been six DD elections, and the outcomes do not conclusively support your proposition.

This is very confusing for Members. 
[/quote]

If you want to try and understand comments you might well try and do exactly that. IN almost every DD election, the party in power lost votes. Hawke pushed an inexcusable early election in 84 and was punished for it - badly. He was mauled.

That substantiates my claim that voters hate DDs and early elections and punish parties for it.  That in no way invalidates the claim that there is too little history on which to make CERTAIN OUTCOME PREDICTIONS. (caps for your benefit)

try and keep up.  When you start nit-picking on every little phrase and word then I know you are already on the back foot. You are like the lawyer looking for tiny technical holes on which to base an appeal, knowing you have already lost your case.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 4:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:24pm: Quote: The carbon tax is terribly unpopular as is anyone who stand in the way of its repeal. The ALP is standing in the way of said repeal, and they are well ahead in the Polls.  (Nah...don't even bother asking for a link.  We all know it, even the rusted on LNP supporters here.) So let me get this straight.  When the Libs are in govt on the back of a landslide, in large measure because of the carbon tax it is NOT a repudiation of the carbon tax, but when labor holds a lead in opinion l polls YEARS out from an election, it is meaningful? I understand the ALP opposing the repeal even though they are wrong. I see no reason at all for PUP to oppose the repeal. That is nonsensical.

thats not what krudd went to the election with.... he said it was going....oh I forgot we dont take any notice of what they say before an election do we..

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 5:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 5:06pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:57pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:51pm: Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:40pm: crocodile wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 4:35pm: Quote: And if Abbott did go the DD route, PUP are exterminated regardless of the outcome and as soon as perhaps 6 months. Not so sure about that. Perhaps in the lower house where only one seat is held. A full senate election is another matter. The participants only require half a quota to get across the line. They may actually improve their senate numbers. Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them.  They also take umbrage at having their wishes ignored.  Gillard was destroyed by the carbon tax as a clear example. Labor would take a hit but PUP - as architects of the DD - would be virtually eliminated. Nah.  History is not entirely on your side there. Click here. There is too little history on which to make many certain outcome predictions. in 1987 the re-election of the hawke govt was not because of the australia card - which was very unpopular - but because of Joh and is incessant ego and fiddling. 1983 was Fraser being foolish and going early for an election he was never going to win even against Bill Hayden. 1975 is a precedent for nothing. True, but that did not prevent you posting this: [quote]Voters hate DD elections and punish parties that push extra elections on them. Mr B & B.....you seem to forget what you have said only hours before you contradict yourself.  There has only been six DD elections, and the outcomes do not conclusively support your proposition. This is very confusing for Members.

If you want to try and understand comments you might well try and do exactly that. IN almost every DD election, the party in power lost votes. Hawke pushed an inexcusable early election in 84 and was punished for it - badly. He was mauled.

That substantiates my claim that voters hate DDs and early elections and punish parties for it.  That in no way invalidates the claim that there is too little history on which to make CERTAIN OUTCOME PREDICTIONS. (caps for your benefit)

try and keep up.  When you start nit-picking on every little phrase and word then I know you are already on the back foot. You are like the lawyer looking for tiny technical holes on which to base an appeal, knowing you have already lost your case.[/quote]

:)

Please "Bread and Butter" don't call him a lawyer...
Apart from claiming to be one he show little that goes to the credibility of the claim.

Grendel wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 6:37pm:

Please "Bread and Butter" don't call him a lawyer... Apart from claiming to be one he show little that goes to the credibility of the claim.

He didn't.

:)