Australian Politics Forum - Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38799 Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #45 - Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:36pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:32pm: Look, I can imagine you are happy that Libs lost Fairfax, a seat they absolutely took for granted. What has Clive done for Faifax so far? Nothing visible yet. Just like Mal Brough next door in Fisher has done nothing visible yet.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #46 - Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:38pm

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

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

What has Clive done for Faifax so far?

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

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #47 - Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:00pm

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #48 - Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:02pm

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #49 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #50 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 3:29pm

Quote:

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

Excellent work!

Back to top

IP Logged

Redmond Neck Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 21651 ACT Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #51 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 4:44pm Sorry Aussie much as i know you admire Clive, I think most of us have woken up to him and his look after Clive party and will give him the two fingered salute in WA's new vote! Sorry Aussie!!
Back to top	BAN ALL THESE ABO SITES RECOGNITIONS. ALL AUSTRALIA IS FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS! IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #52 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 5:02pm

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

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

Sorry Aussie!!

Wink

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38799 Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #53 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 5:26pm I wonder if any heads roll about this matter? Click here.
Back to top	IP Logged

St George of the Garden Gold Member Offline http://tinyurl.com/n 3o8m2x Posts: 9809 Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #54 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:26pm Brough is useless, but you reckon Clive could perform, sometime. But currently he is only as good as Brough and has done sod all for Fairfax.
Back to top	I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso! IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #55 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:28pm

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

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

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

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #56 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:48pm

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

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

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

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

Clive's best work will be seen after:

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #57 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 8:57pm

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coalition allowed him to do so.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #58 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:11pm

Quote:

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

The Coalition allowed him to do so.

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #59 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:39pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coalition allowed him to do so.

The bigger the font, the worse the argument. Roll Eyes

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged