If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

As usual, Bam forwards a logical position.
Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must.

Stuff a non–binding plebiscite, we need to have a referendum on the TPP! And TiSA which is even worse and more evil!

And you were opposed to one on the Carbon Tax.  You do practice hypocrisy often. No wonder you are so good at it!

____ wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:56am:

As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must.

So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right?

No.

____ wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No.

Why? What's the difference?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference?

Wait for it... it will be an epic rant laced with hypocrisy and bias.

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

Because we'd reject it outright.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:34am:

Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:15pm: If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it? Because we'd reject it outright.

Like a plebiscite on the Carbon Tax?

What about one on keeping boat people out?

We had an election on the Carbon Price.

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

Is the plebiscite on gay marriage a result of a divided nation and parliament or is it a stunt by a party that is simply opposed to marriage equality? If the latter, which seems to be the case given the support for marriage equality in the polls, the plebiscite has very little to do with engaging the public in important policy decisions. For this reason, I'm not surprised the TPP and other truly contentious issues are not being put to the public.

Some form of direct democracy, like the citizen-initiated referendum in Switzerland, seems the only real chance of increasing the decision making powers of the public.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

We had an election on the Carbon Price.

You mean this one???

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

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:33am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? Wait for it... it will be an epic rant laced with hypocrisy and bias.

Still waiting for it...

No plebiscite - it should be thrown straight in the bin.

... wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:54am:

No plebiscite - it should be thrown straight in the bin.

Should be but obviously won’t.

There is nowhere to hide in the modern global economy.

Dont like it??

Sticking your head in the sand is unlikely to help.

TPP represents a great opportunity if every citizen decides to make themselves more valuable.

TPP represents a great disaster if they dont.

What the PM should tell the electorate is this.

No more whining and complaining bitches.
You live in australia.
Now go invent some stuff.
Go start some industries.
Go read some books.
Go make yourself stronger.
Go to the gym .
Go eat some nutritious food.
Quit your bellyaching.

If you cant outperform the chodes in asia,

You have

Messed Up  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

We had an election on the Carbon Price.

Yeah in 2010 where both parties said NO CARBON TAX.

And then in 2013 we had one again on the topic and won by the NO CARBON TAX libs

Got the point yet, bedwetter?


53/47

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

... wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:54am: No plebiscite - it should be thrown straight in the bin. Should be but obviously won’t.

Thank heavens for the good people in the Senate!  :)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference?

The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts.

Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights.

Do you want less democratic power?

For once I agree with Lib lover Greens_win.

We are giving away our sovereignty! We REALLY have to think hard and let people decide as to whether we do that or not.

Next cab of the rank is even worse, TiSA. Trade in Services Agreement. Do some reading about it.

The TPP also binds the people to the power of corporations, without a corresponding transfer of power from corporations to the people.

____ wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power?

Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 11:43am:

For once I agree with Lib lover Greens_win. We are giving away our sovereignty! We REALLY have to think hard and let people decide as to whether we do that or not. Next cab of the rank is even worse, TiSA. Trade in Services Agreement. Do some reading about it.

It's your choice to state your own opinions. Please do not make up dishonest posts pretending you know mine.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them.

The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP.
How about a statement from you on topic.

RWNJs deflecting furiously.

____ wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them. The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP. How about a statement from you on topic.

Nothing wrong with the TPP as far as I can tell. Nothing but left-wing scare mongering.

How would you know, ArmPit? It is all secret.

You happy with ISDS?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 12:17pm:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them. The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP. How about a statement from you on topic. Nothing wrong with the TPP as far as I can tell. Nothing but left-wing scare mongering.

Tobacco giant sues Australia

More than $50 million of taxpayer money is expected to go up in smoke defending cigarette plain packaging in a secretive international tribunal in Singapore.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/


This is what you support. Australia being sued in a secretive nondemocratic court just because we are attempting to cut cig health costs along with underage smoking ... and smoking deaths.

So as a nurse, do you support a multinational company's right to kill Australians via this secretive court which the TPP makes the highest of all courts?


Do you support the TPP just out of ignorance?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 12:17pm:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them. The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP. How about a statement from you on topic. Nothing wrong with the TPP as far as I can tell. Nothing but left-wing scare mongering.

Do you read before signing ?

I think it's crucial to remember that the TPP also involves the United States - the most litigious nation on the planet. Not exactly the sort of place you want to establish an ISDS mechanism.

O))) wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 1:45pm:

I think it's crucial to remember that the TPP also involves the United States - the most litigious nation on the planet. Not exactly the sort of place you want to establish an ISDS mechanism.

Of course we must all agree with you. After all, you're a world-leading authority on international law.

Its time wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 12:17pm: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them. The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP. How about a statement from you on topic. Nothing wrong with the TPP as far as I can tell. Nothing but left-wing scare mongering. Do you read before signing ?

The more important question is: can you read at all?

____ wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 1:41pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 12:17pm: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them. The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP. How about a statement from you on topic. Nothing wrong with the TPP as far as I can tell. Nothing but left-wing scare mongering. Tobacco giant sues Australia More than $50 million of taxpayer money is expected to go up in smoke defending cigarette plain packaging in a secretive international tribunal in Singapore. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/ This is what you support. Australia being sued in a secretive nondemocratic court just because we are attempting to cut cig health costs along with underage smoking ... and smoking deaths. So as a nurse, do you support a multinational company's right to kill Australians via this secretive court which the TPP makes the highest of all courts? Do you support the TPP just out of ignorance?

And on the topic of ignorance... this suit takes place under laws put in place by Paul Keating.

ancient news...

So doesn’t that show we should be careful about signing up to much more exposure to ISDS?

You really don’t think clearly, eh Mongy?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 12:17pm:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:54am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:28am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? No. Why? What's the difference? The TPP erects a non democratic and secretive court, higher than the current courts. Australians should have a choice if they would like to undermine their democratic rights. Do you want less democratic power? Australians should've had a choice on the carbon tax, but Browneye and Juliar took that away from them. The topic is a plebiscite on the TPP. How about a statement from you on topic. Nothing wrong with the TPP as far as I can tell. Nothing but left-wing scare mongering.

The TPP allows corporations to come into the country and make huge profits, yet if the government does anything that harms those profits - say by introducing a tax or increasing competition - the company can SUE THE GOVERNMENT in a secret overseas court.

Yet if those same corporations charge Australians 50% to 400% more for the same product (which happens now) - often from the same servers - the Australian public has no right of action against those corporations for price gouging.

Does that seem right to you?

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:37pm:

So doesn’t that show we should be careful about signing up to much more exposure to ISDS? You really don’t think clearly, eh Mongy?

The point is that it was your beloved Labor that put this in place. And a constitutional issue that none of you have ever bothered to address is that the constitution says that NO EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT OR BODY can makes laws or seek to enforce them in Australia. It simply is not permitted under any circumstances.

Labor may have signed one treaty that had ISDS clauses under which we are now being sued re our Plain Packaging laws. Not smart to sign up to a treaty we can’t recant, especially when one party is thirty times bigger than us and is extremely litigious.

Only a more on like a Lib supporter could think signing the TPP is a good thing. Right, Mongy?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:37pm: So doesn’t that show we should be careful about signing up to much more exposure to ISDS? You really don’t think clearly, eh Mongy? The point is that it was your beloved Labor that put this in place. And a constitutional issue that none of you have ever bothered to address is that the constitution says that NO EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT OR BODY can makes laws or seek to enforce them in Australia. It simply is not permitted under any circumstances.

Not saying you are not correct.  I've not come across it, is all.  What section?

If Mongy is correct why is the govt spending $50m defending our Plain Packaging law in some bullcrap secret ISDS court hearing? There is the external affairs power under which the Commonwealth can sign treaties that bind it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 4:36pm:

O))) wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 1:45pm: I think it's crucial to remember that the TPP also involves the United States - the most litigious nation on the planet. Not exactly the sort of place you want to establish an ISDS mechanism. Of course we must all agree with you. After all, you're a world-leading authority on international law.

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Did you respond to the right post? Or do you think America isn't particularly litigious? Care to add some actual substance?

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

The TPP is not a yes/no question. The answer is yes, overwhelmingly. It's the details that need to be sorted out.

The TPP is not about free trade, it is about letting corporations run our lives. Answer is “No.”

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

Yes agree entirely

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right?

Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:42am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence

I'm not sure we would have had a fixed-price carbon tax if the plebiscite had given us a choice of models.

Bam wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

The TPP also binds the people to the power of corporations, without a corresponding transfer of power from corporations to the people.

Also there has been no genuine assessment as to whether it will lose more jobs then it will create AND no assessment as to whether it will drive domestic wages even further down. Frankly they dont give a sh!t whether Aust jobs are lost just as long as the few at the top make their money and were left with the BS trickle down scam which we're supposed to assume will create more jobs then destroy eventhough we will be competing with slave wages. This TPP is definitely a lose lose for everyone but the few. Time to insist on real democracy and put this sh!t TPP to a vote. 

Aussie wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 6:10pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:37pm: So doesn’t that show we should be careful about signing up to much more exposure to ISDS? You really don’t think clearly, eh Mongy? The point is that it was your beloved Labor that put this in place. And a constitutional issue that none of you have ever bothered to address is that the constitution says that NO EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT OR BODY can makes laws or seek to enforce them in Australia. It simply is not permitted under any circumstances. Not saying you are not correct.  I've not come across it, is all.  What section?

I'm hardly a lawyer so you go look for it. But think about it. Does it not make sense that the constitution would explicitly make the federal government the supreme body in the country? Can you imagine any country permitting another to establish laws in its territory?

Bam wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:59am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence I'm not sure we would have had a fixed-price carbon tax if the plebiscite had given us a choice of models.

You can't say I support democracy just as long as the majority always supports what i support.  So I think if you truly believe in democracy then a decision as important to everyone as this must be put to the people to decide. Having said that I truly believe that when properly debated the people make far better decisions then government by the few. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:42am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence

You can be confident all you like but it would be misplaced. All polls taken on the question had the strong majority of people opposed to the carbon tax and when they were finally allowed to have their say, executed the labor government.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:08am:

Bam wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:59am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence I'm not sure we would have had a fixed-price carbon tax if the plebiscite had given us a choice of models. You can't say I support democracy just as long as the majority always supports what i support.  So I think if you truly believe in democracy then a decision as important to everyone as this must be put to the people to decide. Having said that I truly believe that when properly debated the people make far better decisions then government by the few.

Implicit in your wish is the hilarious suggestion that the average voter is in any way informed or educated enough to make a decision based on actual knowledge. it would end up being nothing more than a vote on the party's positions and simply worthless.

Once the Carbon Price was operating and people saw how the Libs had over-exaggerated the consequences of a CP ($100 legs of lamb, Whyalla wiped off the map etc) they favored a CP.

If bloody Rudd hadn’t ratted on Julia we would still have decent govt and a carbon price. Instead we are in recession.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:23am:

Once the Carbon Price was operating and people saw how the Libs had over-exaggerated the consequences of a CP ($100 legs of lamb, Whyalla wiped off the map etc) they favored a CP. If bloody Rudd hadn’t ratted on Julia we would still have decent govt and a carbon price. Instead we are in recession.

They never did at all. An arithmetic majority opposed the CT and that never changed.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:20am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence You can be confident all you like but it would be misplaced. All polls taken on the question had the strong majority of people opposed to the carbon tax and when they were finally allowed to have their say, executed the labor government.

Yes yes we know how reliable you are when it comes to the facts.  And here's something that you should understand but clearly lack the intelligence to do so. Elections, with all the thousands of issues on the table including personalities and scandals etc, are not plebicites and they tell us close to nothing about what the people want in respect of individual issues. 

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:22am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:08am: Bam wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:59am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence I'm not sure we would have had a fixed-price carbon tax if the plebiscite had given us a choice of models. You can't say I support democracy just as long as the majority always supports what i support.  So I think if you truly believe in democracy then a decision as important to everyone as this must be put to the people to decide. Having said that I truly believe that when properly debated the people make far better decisions then government by the few.  Implicit in your wish is the hilarious suggestion that the average voter is in any way informed or educated enough to make a decision based on actual knowledge. it would end up being nothing more than a vote on the party's positions and simply worthless.

It always surprises me how someone as little informed and as incapable of logical deduction as you are thinks they are are capable of making better decisions then the average joe.  In fact I have no doubt that your presence in the polity lowers the average intelligence of the whole. 

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:29am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:23am: Once the Carbon Price was operating and people saw how the Libs had over-exaggerated the consequences of a CP ($100 legs of lamb, Whyalla wiped off the map etc) they favored a CP. If bloody Rudd hadn’t ratted on Julia we would still have decent govt and a carbon price. Instead we are in recession. They never did at all. An arithmetic majority opposed the CT and that never changed.

You are making stuff up again. Read the various polls that ask questions re policy.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:02am:

Aussie wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:10pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:37pm: So doesn’t that show we should be careful about signing up to much more exposure to ISDS? You really don’t think clearly, eh Mongy? The point is that it was your beloved Labor that put this in place. And a constitutional issue that none of you have ever bothered to address is that the constitution says that NO EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT OR BODY can makes laws or seek to enforce them in Australia. It simply is not permitted under any circumstances. Not saying you are not correct.  I've not come across it, is all.  What section? I'm hardly a lawyer so you go look for it.

Don't be lazy. You made the claim, you prove it.

What Mongy means, tho he has given no evidence as usual, is that a Labor govt signed a treaty/FTA that included ISDS.

It is under ISDS that the Pushers in Suits are suing us in secretive courts to try and overturn our Plain Packaging laws.

It seems clear that ISDS is to be avoided like the plague but the fanbois are all for it, bless their low intelligence.

I'd be happy with a plebiscite, as long as voting was restricted to those holding degrees in Law, Economics as well as an MBA.
They are the only people who would understand it, if and when they get to see it in its entirety and can spend weeks studying it.

It would just be a joke to put it to a vote by the general public.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 9:04am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:22am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:08am: Bam wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:59am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 8:18am: ____ wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:56am: As usual, Bam forwards a logical position. Since the TPP promotes a secret court, so businesses can sue Australia, to the highest of courts, then a plebiscite on the TPP is a must. So it follows then that we should've been given a plebiscite on the carbon tax, right? Yes absolutely. No one should decide an issue as important as this but us AND I'm confident we wo9uld have a carbin tax as a consequence I'm not sure we would have had a fixed-price carbon tax if the plebiscite had given us a choice of models. You can't say I support democracy just as long as the majority always supports what i support.  So I think if you truly believe in democracy then a decision as important to everyone as this must be put to the people to decide. Having said that I truly believe that when properly debated the people make far better decisions then government by the few.  Implicit in your wish is the hilarious suggestion that the average voter is in any way informed or educated enough to make a decision based on actual knowledge. it would end up being nothing more than a vote on the party's positions and simply worthless. It always surprises me how someone as little informed and as incapable of logical deduction as you are thinks they are are capable of making better decisions then the average joe.  In fact I have no doubt that your presence in the polity lowers the average intelligence of the whole.

The Carbon Tax was a hated tax and so by a solid majority. You can pretend otherwise if you wish and you undoubtedly will do just that.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:42am:

I'd be happy with a plebiscite, as long as voting was restricted to those holding degrees in Law, Economics as well as an MBA. They are the only people who would understand it, if and when they get to see it in its entirety and can spend weeks studying it. It would just be a joke to put it to a vote by the general public.

So then we can take it that you only want climate scientist to set Australia's climate change policy. 

Politicians are constantly voting on issues in which they have no or very little expertise.  Indeed that's the way the system is meant to work.  Experts advise the politicians of the complications in relation to a particular issues and then the politicians set the policy.  A direct democracy would do the same where the Public service of experts advise the people and then the people decide and set the policy.  Julie bishop had no foreign policy experience before they made her Minister for foreign affairs (just one of many examples).  BTW the people were telling Howard not to go to war in Iraq but he knew better and created the impossible mess we're in today.  So much for your naive proposition. 

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite.

The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up.

That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

Take a bow Mr Bogarde

http://media.giphy.com/media/mDtdH6h0HuYkU/giphy.gif

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 1:58pm:

But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose.

And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 1:58pm: But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose. And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.

And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it?  I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:49pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 1:58pm: But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose. And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.  And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it?  I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that!

If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them.  But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned  (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me".   OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy.  As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it.  (none of this direct action scam). 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:53pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:49pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 1:58pm: But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose. And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.  And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it?  I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that! If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them.  But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned  (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me".   OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy.  As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it.  (none of this direct action scam).

Nice try for a deflection, but a fail just the same. Repeated polls found people rejected the Carbon tax in a comfortable absolute majority. So if you want plebiscites, you need to realise that the majority of the electorate are conservative and will disappoint you more often that government does now. Let's have a plebiscite on increasing the GST. Without the ideological baggage of an election, that would probably pass.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:07pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:53pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:49pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 1:58pm: But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose. And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.  And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it?  I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that! If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them.  But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned  (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me".   OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy.  As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it.  (none of this direct action scam).  Nice try for a deflection, but a fail just the same. Repeated polls found people rejected the Carbon tax in a comfortable absolute majority. So if you want plebiscites, you need to realise that the majority of the electorate are conservative and will disappoint you more often that government does now. Let's have a plebiscite on increasing the GST. Without the ideological baggage of an election, that would probably pass.

You're like Joe Hockey giving yourself a report card.  Carries no weight I'm sorry.  Now try to get this in your head. I've said it already once in this thread.  Elections do not equate with plebecites.  When people vote in an election they vote for a mutitude of reasons none of which any one of us is ever privy and to pretend that the last election says anything about what people want re the carbon tax is absurd. 

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:19pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:07pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:53pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:49pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 1:58pm: But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose. And I submit to you that you are very very wrong about that and that's from years of experience observing this first hand. Most politicians voting on a Bill will rarely if ever read the materials provided to them on a bill and when they do they devote so little time and effort to the exercise (because there too busy on things more directly related to their re-election, if there not just down right lazy as many are) that they don't understand any of it in any meaningful way. You want to think of people as just acting like a mob because it justifies your need for a nanny to make decisions for you but the reality is that when people believe that they are actually playing a genuine role in the decision making process they behave much more responsibly and conscientiously and with much more common sense and wisdom then the nanny representatives you need to wipe your nose.  And you think 15million busy voters are going to read everything and understand it?  I bet you would change your tune if it were a plebiscite on the carbon tax and in fact, you did just that! If my answer was that the people would be no more conscientious then the politicians then you lose the argument anyway because why have them.  But IMHO people are far more honest, conscientious, responsible and well intentioned  (when they know that they are actually deciding something instead of that BS "vote" they get every 3 years) then their politician counterparts and would spend more time thinking about "what is best for the society" then "what is best for me".   OH yes, there is no comparison IMHO. DD is far superior to the sh!t system we live with that they laughingly call a democracy.  As to the issue of the carbon tax I'm not clear what you are trying to say but I can assure you that I have every expectation that will often take a different view to the majority but in saying that most people accept the reality of AGW and will vote to do something meaningful about it.  (none of this direct action scam).  Nice try for a deflection, but a fail just the same. Repeated polls found people rejected the Carbon tax in a comfortable absolute majority. So if you want plebiscites, you need to realise that the majority of the electorate are conservative and will disappoint you more often that government does now. Let's have a plebiscite on increasing the GST. Without the ideological baggage of an election, that would probably pass.

Yes I think the GST should be decided by us but there are a lot more higher priority things first like meaningful action to stop tax cheats

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1229687665089

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/lowy-institute-poll-results-show-public-opposition-carbon-tax

NO CARBON TAX

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-support-growing-for-carbon-pricing-laws-20140622-zsi40.html

SUPPORT RISING BUT STILL NO TO CARBON TAX


and here is one that supports your position...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-want-to-keep-carbon-tax-poll-20130713-2px4d.html

and surprise, surprise, it isn't a pure carbon tax poll at all but linked to another question. It is the only way to get a faux result by connecting it to another unrelated question.

Still want plebiscites?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/davidson-goodbye-to-the-all-pain-no-gain-carbon-tax/5597614

he carbon tax lacked democratic legitimacy, hurt the Australian economy, and did nothing to address global warming. Good riddance, writes Sinclair Davidson.

The carbon tax has been repealed. While there has been a bit of kerfuffle and excitement around the repeal that will keep political junkies talking for some time, the voters will recall a promise made and a promise kept.

The carbon tax was an unpopular impost introduced by an unpopular prime minister.

Immediately prior to the 2010 election, Julia Gillard stared down the camera on Channel Ten and declared, "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." We can quibble as to what exactly she meant by that but it seems that the electorate had a very specific understanding of her words.

The introduction of the "Carbon Tax" - as it came to be known, despite efforts to recast it as a "price" or whatever - was widely perceived as being a broken promise. In response, the Coalition under Tony Abbott ran a very effective scare campaign against the tax - much as Labor and the unions had run against WorkChoices - and the rest is history.

The repeal of the carbon tax should not be seen as bad politics stymying good policy. No doubt that is what carbon tax supporters will argue, but like WorkChoices before it, the carbon tax was bad policy on many levels. Ultimately both policies suffered from the same defect - a lack of democratic legitimacy.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:38pm:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1229687665089 NO CARBON TAX http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/lowy-institute-poll-results-show-public-opposition-carbon-tax NO CARBON TAX http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-support-growing-for-carbon-pricing-laws-20140622-zsi40.html SUPPORT RISING BUT STILL NO TO CARBON TAX and here is one that supports your position... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-want-to-keep-carbon-tax-poll-20130713-2px4d.html and surprise, surprise, it isn't a pure carbon tax poll at all but linked to another question. It is the only way to get a faux result by connecting it to another unrelated question. Still want plebiscites?

Yes absolutely because I'm a democrat and the polls you cite are not the only polls during the relevant period and I am personally confident that people would vote for genuine action on climate change esp after a proper information campaign on both sides of the debate, unclouded by a wider discussion about who will govern for the next 3 years etc

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:38pm: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/most-voters-want-carbon-tax-scrapped-poll/story-fn3dxiwe-1229687665089 NO CARBON TAX http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/lowy-institute-poll-results-show-public-opposition-carbon-tax NO CARBON TAX http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-support-growing-for-carbon-pricing-laws-20140622-zsi40.html SUPPORT RISING BUT STILL NO TO CARBON TAX and here is one that supports your position... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/most-want-to-keep-carbon-tax-poll-20130713-2px4d.html and surprise, surprise, it isn't a pure carbon tax poll at all but linked to another question. It is the only way to get a faux result by connecting it to another unrelated question. Still want plebiscites? Yes absolutely because I'm a democrat and the polls you cite are not the only polls during the relevant period and I am personally confident that people would vote for genuine action on climate change esp after a proper information campaign on both sides of the debate, unclouded by a wider discussion about who will govern for the next 3 years etc

You are not even close to a democrat. You want plebiscites on topic you think you can win but when you talk about things you will lose you obsfucate - like with the carbon tax.  A true democrat would accept that democracy has a right to disagree and rule against you. YOU DONT.

Bam wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it?

yes

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:22pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 1:58pm: But I submit, IMHO, there's a difference between representatives, briefed by experts, voting in their assembly on such an issue - the proper place for this TPP to be voted on - and the general public voting in a plebiscite. The general public can't be briefed adequately, short of everybody being issued with a huge volume, firstly on the contents of the treaty and secondly on the probable and possible consequences of signing up. That's what we have representative democracy for. It might not be perfect, indeed it's far from perfect on many occasions, but it's far better than having someone leading the Parisian mob by the nose. Take a bow Mr Bogarde http://media.giphy.com/media/mDtdH6h0HuYkU/giphy.gif

don't agree ... it's up to the politicians read the fine print and then to sell it to us one way or the other. If it will benefit us the people will vote for it, if they're doing it for their own self interests instead of the countries, there is less likelihood they'll be able to sell it.

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:15pm: If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it? yes

You didn't want one on the Carbon Tax. You don't want one on the GST. You just want your own little agenda?  How typically left-wing of you.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 5:09pm: Bam wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:15pm: If the current government has a policy of putting same-sex marriage to the people in a plebiscite, why not also refer the Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement to the people? It is more likely to impact on our lives than same -sex marriage, so why can't the people have a direct say on it? yes You didn't want one on the Carbon Tax. You don't want one on the GST. You just want your own little agenda?  How typically left-wing of you.

How typically right wing of you to ignore the facts and make crap up. I in fact don't care if there is a plebiscite on any subject.

I suspect your real problem is that you don't know the difference between a plebiscite and an election

Apart from abuse you don’t have much, do you, Mongy? Even fellow Libturds don’t support you. You aren’t much liked here, too bloody abusive by far!

You throw insults my way, to me that just shows you are an uneducated bogan slob with no real ability or knowledge to debate. Your insults don’t bother me but I think the board would be much better off without them.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 6:47pm:

to me that just shows you are an uneducated bogan slob with no real ability or knowledge to debate.

Maria reminds of Mrs Bucket .....

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/keepingupappearances/images/7/75/Hyacinth.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 6:47pm:

Apart from abuse you don’t have much, do you, Mongy? Even fellow Libturds don’t support you. You aren’t much liked here, too bloody abusive by far! You throw insults my way, to me that just shows you are an uneducated bogan slob with no real ability or knowledge to debate. Your insults don’t bother me but I think the board would be much better off without them.

53/47

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/keepingupappearances/images/7/75/Hyacinth.jpg

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:37pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 6:47pm: Apart from abuse you don’t have much, do you, Mongy? Even fellow Libturds don’t support you. You aren’t much liked here, too bloody abusive by far! You throw insults my way, to me that just shows you are an uneducated bogan slob with no real ability or knowledge to debate. Your insults don’t bother me but I think the board would be much better off without them. 53/47

What the Shaitan has this to do with the 'trans pacific partnership' that is set to finally wreck this once great country? 

When you learn to not be a member of the petit fasciste concept of somehow anyone who employs owns that person... perhaps you will find yourself... until then you are a pure representative of what your name represents - greed, barbarous, cruel, semi-intelligent, grasping peasantry import from a dark nation with a Napoleonic complex.