John Smith wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:43pm:


there was seriosu discussion at the time - including on here - of the possibility of a hung parliament. with polls at 50/50 that was always a strong possibility and was mentioned prior to the election.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 2:26pm:


yes im sure there was a lot of talk about the possibility of howard winning a minority govt in 1996.

it is a simple fact that unless the polls are very close, NO ONE predicts a hung parliament. But in 2010 there was quite some discussion of it because of the largish number of indies and the 50/50 poll split.

all this trying to rewrite history is a little pathetic.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:14pm:


Actually Longy, if you read what I posted, you will see I am suggesting that we hold them accountable rather than just moaning about it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:21pm:


It is not a redefinition. It is just being honest about what sort of mandate the major parties have. If the people want to put absolute power in the hands of one party they will, and have done it before.

Mandates are funny things. Elections are never fought on one single issue - ever. Furthermore elections and plebiscites generally only have one of two possible outcomes (the last federal election being an exception), yet on any real issue there is an infinite spectrum of possible outcomes.

This talk of clear mandates always oversimilifies the matter.

The carbon tax will come into effect 1st July. Lefties are telling us that Gillard will give it 12 months to show the electorate that the sky is falling down before calling an election.

BTW - the chicken little comment did not come from Abbott. It was a senior Union official that first used it against the Carbon Tax around the 19th April.

It is clear and without doubt Abbott will go into the 2013 election with repealing the Carbon Tax as a major election issue.

You've all heard Gillard tell you that Abbott won't repeal it because it's too hard.

Let me give you and Gillard a history lesson.

Workchoices was introduced 2005.

Rudd went into the 2007 election promising to repeal Workchoices.

Workchoices was repealed in 2008 - 3 years after it took effect!!

So if Workchoices was repealed 3 years into it's life - then certainly the Carbon Tax can be repealed 1 year into it's life.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:


rubbish. the 98 election was on the GST and pretty much nothing else.

the notion of mandate is always difficult and becomes impossible if you assume a black and white position such as you have. the 2007 election gave a clear and unequivocal mandate for the removal of workchoices.   the 2010 election gave no one a mandate for anything - not even govt.

you talk about holding govts accountable but only at elections as if there is no requirement for the govt to listen in between. I know you love the carbon tax, but mandates are matters of principle. The ultimate ends of what you are talking about is govts doing absolutely anythign they can to get into power and then utterly ignoring them when there. We have the right to expect better than that.

When Howard brought in workchoices he broke a convention of not implementing major polcieis without electroal support. Up until then it had been pretty well understood. That was bad. And in 2010, Gillard took it a step further byt promising one thing whiel clearly intending to do the opposite. And now you are trying to say that if the elction campaign is fought substantially over the Carbon tax and Abbott wins a significant majority that that means nothing? What are elections supposed to be? where we choose people who are under no obligation to do as they promise and can be thwarted by other people as well?

you often talk about making our political system more accountable, yet your every post on the matter says the opposite. We cant hold them ACCOUNTABLE unless we express clear EXPECTATIONS of them. ONe of those should be to obey their promises. A second should be to do what the electorat demands, regardless of your ability to thwart it.

its not a onerous obligation. it is called PRINCIPLE.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:


But he went to the 98 election with the GST as his center-piece

Well abbott just said on TV that if he repeals the carbon tax he wont repeal the compensation. Just as well cause that "compensation" wasnt compensation @ all it was something that would been done anyway. Doesnt matter. Abbott will never be PM so topic is moot.

SOB