Australian Politics Forum - Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators

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 #60 - Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:59pm And if it is roach then it is not an argument more a troll.
Back to top	I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso! IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #61 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:27am

Bam wrote on 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

Got nothin? Then I suggest you say nothing... nothing worse than a sore loser. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #62 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:29am

Aussie wrote on 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.

You are one of the few people I know that argue with someone whilst agreeing with them. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Redmond Neck

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 21647
ACT
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #63 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:06am

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

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.

Very good and accurate explanation of how parliament really works Bam!

Just proves all this banging on about having a mandate to do this or that is a lot of rubbish.

Back to top

BAN ALL THESE ABO SITES RECOGNITIONS.

ALL AUSTRALIA IS FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS!

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #64 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10am

All parties claim a mandate... in some cases this IS a valid claim... Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent. Both were the major issues at previous elections. So it can be argued that a mandate has been given.

Secondary policies not so much though.

As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #65 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:17am

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:27am:

Bam wrote on 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:

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

Got nothin? Then I suggest you say nothing... nothing worse than a sore loser. Roll Eyes

Geez you can make up crap. You did not refute anything I said. Your attempt at vandalising the thread with spray paint was an irrelevant point.

The Opposition chose to vote with the government. Who cares? The major parties vote the same way on a lot of legislation. Most likely, they chose to do so on this bill for reasons of their own - political, no doubt.

It does not in any way invalidate my point.

You don't win an argument by posting in an enormous font like a teenager with a can of spray paint and when this is pointed out you pretend you have won. You haven't. It's YOU that has got nothing.

Now put away the spray paint and let the grown-ups talk.

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

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #66 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:24am

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10am:

All parties claim a mandate... in some cases this IS a valid claim... Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent. Both were the major issues at previous elections. So it can be argued that a mandate has been given.

Secondary policies not so much though.

As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite.

hummm but it doesnt mean the govt of the day has to abide by the result.....aka the ACT. local govt referendums TWO OF THEM...both against....but Bob Hawke said bugger them they are getting one.. Roll Eyes

so no.. there is no such thing as a mandate.. its something pollies pretend we take in. and imagine they live by ..................their word. Grin

as it is too many get elected on preferences......

maybe we should have two results .. one on primary..

and one on the full count....at least we would know what peoples FIRST intentions were.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #67 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 2:34pm

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:24am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10am:

All parties claim a mandate... in some cases this IS a valid claim... Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent. Both were the major issues at previous elections. So it can be argued that a mandate has been given.

Secondary policies not so much though.

As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite.

hummm but it doesnt mean the govt of the day has to abide by the result.....aka the ACT. local govt referendums TWO OF THEM...both against....but Bob Hawke said bugger them they are getting one.. Roll Eyes

so no.. there is no such thing as a mandate.. its something pollies pretend we take in. and imagine they live by ..................their word. Grin

as it is too many get elected on preferences......

maybe we should have two results .. one on primary..

and one on the full count....at least we would know what peoples FIRST intentions were.

We have those facts available under the existing system.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #68 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:23pm

Bam wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:17am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:27am:

Bam wrote on 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:

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

Got nothin? Then I suggest you say nothing... nothing worse than a sore loser. Roll Eyes

Geez you can make up crap. You did not refute anything I said. Your attempt at vandalising the thread with spray paint was an irrelevant point.

Never happened. you posted nothing of substance regards my point. hardly what I'd call refutation.

The Opposition chose to vote with the government. Who cares? The major parties vote the same way on a lot of legislation. Most likely, they chose to do so on this bill for reasons of their own - political, no doubt.

Most legislation was passed with bipartisan support... yet the ALP claimed Abbott was Dr No. that's a lie. My point which you failed to refute was that the Libs let them dismantle the one policy they had a mandate for Workchoices.

It does not in any way invalidate my point. Roll Eyes

Nothing you've said invalidates mine.

You don't win an argument by posting in an enormous font like a teenager with a can of spray paint and when this is pointed out you pretend you have won. You haven't. It's YOU that has got nothing.

Never been a graffitti artist or vandal slur someone else. large font makes it hard for scanners to miss. My point stands and is valid... like I said... you got nothing.

Now put away the spray paint and let the grown-ups talk.

Put away your bias and stupidity... I'm doubting you'll ever be a grown up.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38799 Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #69 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm The Libs allowed it, did they? My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #70 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:29pm

Feel free to provide any evidence where they tried to speak or act against the ALP policy to get rid of Workchoices in Parliament.
They were defeated because of it, even Abbott admitted that... That's why it was dead buried and cremated!!! Roll Eyes

Quote:

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says the Coalition has dropped its WorkChoices policy.

Dr Nelson says the Coalition was damaged at the election by its industrial relations policies and he has officially declared WorkChoices dead.

"We have listened and we have learned, and one of the issues that was very important to the Australian people in changing the Government on November 24 was that of WorkChoices," he said.

"We've listened to the Australian people, we respect the decisions they have made, and WorkChoices is dead."

He has called on the Government to move quickly to introduce its draft industrial relations legislation.

Labor did and Nelson let it pass unopposed....

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #71 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:33pm

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:29pm:

Feel free to provide any evidence where they tried to speak or act against the ALP policy to get rid of Workchoices in Parliament.
They were defeated because of it, even Abbott admitted that... That's why it was dead buried and cremated!!! Roll Eyes

Quote:

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says the Coalition has dropped its WorkChoices policy.

Dr Nelson says the Coalition was damaged at the election by its industrial relations policies and he has officially declared WorkChoices dead.

"We have listened and we have learned, and one of the issues that was very important to the Australian people in changing the Government on November 24 was that of WorkChoices," he said.

"We've listened to the Australian people, we respect the decisions they have made, and WorkChoices is dead."

He has called on the Government to move quickly to introduce its draft industrial relations legislation.

Labor did and Nelson let it pass unopposed....

You did not answer my question which was:

Quote:

Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #72 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:41pm

Oh, bugger it. I might as well do it myself.

Quote:

Labor and the Coalition won 18 seats each in the half-Senate election. The Greens won three seats, with Independent Nick Xenophon being elected on primary votes alone. This took the 76-member Senate total to 37 Coalition, 32 Labor, 5 Green, 1 Family First, and 1 Independent. With a majority being 39 senators, when the new Senate met after 1 July 2008, the balance of power was shared between Xenophon, Family First's Steve Fielding and the five Greens. Xenophon, although reported as left-of-centre,[12] indicated plans to work closely with the renegade National, Senator Barnaby Joyce.[13] If sufficient Coalition senators vote for government legislation, support from the crossbench will not be required.

Ergo, the LNP did not 'allow' a burial of Workchoices. They had no choice, because the Senate (no matter what the LNP wanted) was always going to kiss it good-bye.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #73 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:22pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm:

The Libs allowed it, did they? My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel?

aussie they lost the election... it was bombarded with ads from the unions on WORKCHOICES..

everyone knew they had no choice but to drop it..if they had voted for it...they would never have got in again...not with the unions running the show..

and whilst I dont expect you to agree... yes I believe the unions control the ALP>.... and labor would not dare cross them... ask krudd?

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #74 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 6:27pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 2:34pm:

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:24am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10am:

All parties claim a mandate... in some cases this IS a valid claim... Workchoices, Carbon Tax being the most recent. Both were the major issues at previous elections. So it can be argued that a mandate has been given.

Secondary policies not so much though.

As I have stated time and time again the only true mandate can be gauged at a referendum or plebiscite.

hummm but it doesnt mean the govt of the day has to abide by the result.....aka the ACT. local govt referendums TWO OF THEM...both against....but Bob Hawke said bugger them they are getting one.. Roll Eyes

so no.. there is no such thing as a mandate.. its something pollies pretend we take in. and imagine they live by ..................their word. Grin

as it is too many get elected on preferences......

maybe we should have two results .. one on primary..

and one on the full count....at least we would know what peoples FIRST intentions were.

We have those facts available under the existing system.

if you can be bothered nitpicking..which I know you do.. however.. its the last count that gets the attention...... the primary count is only ever mentioned on the likes of these forums.... well that I can see anyway.....

which is a shame.. it should be highlighted....and then get told who gave what to whom...

I dont know of anyone who voted for someone who didnt make it.. that can tell me who got their voted???????... they plain dont know..because it isnt a priority with them... and there s a lot like that.

Back to top

IP Logged