• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Yes and no. A DD would purge the moderates from the Coalition, but not the hard-right deniers.
Yes, this unfortunately. It's no coincidence that the majority of the rebels are Senators or those in safe seats. They don't have their jobs to worry about.

I would assume there are six senators that would be willing to accept Turnbull's decision which to my knowlege is what the government needs. However It will be a spectacularly noble thing for Turnbull to get the bill passed now so that he might get knifed a week later and some bright eyed new leader could go forth with the bill having been passed. I wonder if Turnbull would hang around like Howard and Peacock did after being knifed. Presumably Abbott/Andrews/Dutton/ would get beaten pretty heavily at a general election and there would be a number of progressive libs more than willing to launch a post election coup. Nobody seems interested in hanging around for anything these days though. Antony Green reckons that Wentworth will fall in a general election if Turnbull quits and someone like Abbott leads the liberals at the next election. Particularly if Peter King ran as an independent.
Wentworth is gone. And if the coalition decides to run on an anti-climate platform it will be far from the only one. The ALP must be salivating at the prospect. This is madness.

Also, I hope Hockey waits until the next term. Next election is lost. If he takes over now he will have to tarnish his popularity in the electorate by running the anti-climate platform to appease his colleagues. And he'll still lose anyway. Let Abbott lead the party to decimation to put these fools back in their box. Then Hockey can take over.

This all stems from the 2004 win. What a poison chalice that has turned out to be. (Damn, 7.30 report just made this point.)
 
Last edited:

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Section 57 of the Constitution:

1. If the Senate votes to reject the bills, then it's fairly clear cut. The government has a double dissolution trigger that it can use at anytime up until August 11, 2010.

2. The 'rebels' have indicated however that they wish to refer the bills to a senate select committee for further deliberation. They have additionally attempted to filibuster the bills while in committee in order to prevent a vote. Section 57 allows the Governor-General to call a DD election where the Senate 'fails to pass' a bill. If the government advises the G-G to call an election in such circumstances, it would be up to her to satisfy herself that the requirements of the section have been satisfied. I would be of the opinion that referring the bills to committee would create grounds for a DD election. So what does 'fail to pass' mean?
If Turnbull is removed as leader, Labour will ditch the Liberal amendments and go with their original scheme. The Coalition will reject it, there will be a DD. It doesn't matter whether this current business is a failure to pass or not.

The DD would probably be in July 2010.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
If Turnbull is removed as leader, Labour will ditch the Liberal amendments and go with their original scheme. The Coalition will reject it, there will be a DD. It doesn't matter whether this current business is a failure to pass or not.

The DD would probably be in July 2010.
I doubt very much that they would just vote the bills down. If Turnbull is rolled, the new leader is likely to refer the bills to committee. Certainly they won't vote against them until at least February. They're stupid, but i assume they haven't forgotten Parliamentary tactics 101. But hey, maybe i'm being too generous.
 
Last edited:

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Yes, this unfortunately. It's no coincidence that the majority of the rebels are Senators or those in safe seats. They don't have their jobs to worry about.



Wentworth is gone. And if the coalition decides to run on an anti-climate platform it will be far from the only one. The ALP must be salivating at the prospect. This is madness.

Also, I hope Hockey waits until the next term. Next election is lost. If he takes over now he will have to tarnish his popularity in the electorate by running the anti-climate platform to appease his colleagues. And he'll still lose anyway. Let Abbott lead the party to decimation to put these fools back in their box. Then Hockey can take over.

This all stems from the 2004 win. What a poison chalice that has turned out to be. (Damn, 7.30 report just made this point.)
If Turnbull re contests I'd say Wentworth would swing to him. And for me Hockey wouldn't make sense, Ignatius is what six weeks old? He couldn't possibly want to be prime minister in theoretically six months time.

I agree with your Abbott theory only that it would sadly mean the loss of some of the liberal parties greatest moderates, hell Higgins might be lost. Assuming the party behaves with some kind of discipline in the actual campaign I think results would go something like

Andrews/Dutton: 45-55-Rudd
Abbott-45.5-46-54.5-55-Rudd
Bishop-46-54-Rudd
Turnbull-47.5-52.5-Rudd
Hockey 47-53-Rudd
I give Turnbull the good result because for him to stay on until the next election would only be possible if he managed to turn things around so well. The Abbott, Andrews, Dutton results probably mean an ALP majority in the senate.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Only if he contests every election for the next three years. Latham=worst result since 1977 remember.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
The newspoll figures in this make for a sobering read.

Liberals facing election rout | The Australian

Some extracts:

THE Coalition faces an electoral wipeout at next year's federal election if the rebels led by Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin succeed in blocking the government's climate change legislation.

The Coalition could lose at least 20 of its metropolitan seats, including those of its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey and climate change critics Kevin Andrews and Andrew Robb, according to an analysis of Newspoll results.

Newspoll shows that 63 per cent of Coalition voters in the cities believe the government's bill should be passed, while only 28 per cent think it should be opposed.
If one in 10 of those voters changed sides because of a Coalition decision to block action on climate change, it would cost the Liberal Party the 20 metropolitan seats that it holds with margins of less than 6.5 per cent.

These findings are consistent with the Liberal Party's internal research in marginal seats, which shows that between 75 and 80 per cent of swinging voters favour action on climate change.

Senior party officials say the research shows a triumph by climate change sceptics would be "the death of the party".

the most worrying finding for the Coalition is that its voters aged 18 to 34 favour the government's legislation by a margin of almost five to one. The Newspoll survey, taken in mid-September, showed that 75 per cent of Coalition voters in this age group backed the bill, while only 17 per cent were opposed....

In rural seats, Newspoll found that 41 per cent of Coalition voters were opposed to the government's emissions trading scheme bill while 50 per cent were in favour.

Whatever the Coalition does will lose votes in rural seats, but opposition to the climate change legislation would lose it more.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
"The Liberal Party's own research shows the strongest opposition to the government's bill is in the bedrock 35 per cent of the electorate that is its core support.

These are the voters who have been inundating MPs' offices with emails and phone calls, urging them to block the legislation."

And the MPs have been swayed by this inundation. ffs. These people are going to vote for you anyway! We have compulsory and preferential voting. They are hardly going to start voting Labor. Australian Politics is a battle over the apathetic center. You don't see Rudd pandering to the base.
 
Last edited:

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
"The Liberal Party's own research shows the strongest opposition to the government's bill is in the bedrock 35 per cent of the electorate that is its core support.

These are the voters who have been inundating MPs' offices with emails and phone calls, urging them to block the legislation."

And the MPs have been swayed by this inundation. ffs. These people are going to vote for you anyway! We have compulsory and preferential voting. They are hardly going to start voting Labor. Australian Politics is a battle over the apathetic center. You don't see Rudd pandering to the base.
Since when did our historically moderate, pragmatic Liberal party became the American Republican party?

I'd blame Howard, except even he supports the ETS! Hahahaha.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Since when did our historically moderate, pragmatic Liberal party became the American Republican party?

I'd blame Howard, except even he supports the ETS! Hahahaha.
Has he actually said that he wants the coalition to pass it? From memory the rhetoric from Howard was not dissimilar to the rhetoric of the Minchin gang short of outright insisting climate change didn't exist. Forgive me for having reservations about Howard's intention to ever implement the ETS especially before Copenhagen.
 

A High Way Man

all ova da world
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
1,605
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
"The Liberal Party's own research shows the strongest opposition to the government's bill is in the bedrock 35 per cent of the electorate that is its core support.

These are the voters who have been inundating MPs' offices with emails and phone calls, urging them to block the legislation."

And the MPs have been swayed by this inundation. ffs. These people are going to vote for you anyway! We have compulsory and preferential voting. They are hardly going to start voting Labor. Australian Politics is a battle over the apathetic center. You don't see Rudd pandering to the base.
lol. that wouldnt be out of place on politico
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I can try to sympathise with the rebels I guess. I dont see why it's imperative that Rudd have actual laws to show off at Copenhagen when they might be surpassed or end up totally, pointlessly destructive to the nation based on what happens at the meeting. I think Rudd has really failed to own the debate and convince us why Australia must enact something so fast without knowing where the world is heading. In the absence of such an explaination, it does smack of Rudd's ego imo because it's pretty much laughable to suggest that we can honestly lead the world on this or any issue (no offence straya). It's a global issue and it seems meaningless to go ahead without knowing what the globe wants to do. Hopefully Copenhagen will set comprehensive and universal targets which each nation will subsequently busy themselves in enacting.

The real issue is that Rudd's been too clever by half in manipulating the media and ensuring that they focus on the opposition's position. The resulting spotlight has driven the Coalition to breaking point. This might be good for the ALP, but not for the national interest and certainly not for the planet. Therefore I would like to join the sentiment of the rebels which is, I hope, one of 'risk management' re the environment, but risk management re the outcome of Copenhagen too.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Has he actually said that he wants the coalition to pass it? From memory the rhetoric from Howard was not dissimilar to the rhetoric of the Minchin gang short of outright insisting climate change didn't exist. Forgive me for having reservations about Howard's intention to ever implement the ETS especially before Copenhagen.
Pretty much, he has, as far as I can tell:

Howard goes silent on the ETS | The Australian
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I have no qualms with the deferral of the passing of the legislation until after both the UN Conference and a Senate Inquiry. Any proposal or reform that is to have far reaching economic implications ought to be subject to open analysis and scrutiny.

It seems from the Herald/Nielsen poll today, a large portion of the population would agree with such a move.

Go Joe: Voters Back Hockey | Liberal Leadership

If my understanding of the proposal is correct, I find it ironic that a government that has been so critical neo-liberalism and economic-liberalism is going to introduce a tax of sorts centrally dependent upon market forces.
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
What I find ironic is that Tony Abbott is rejecting the two possible market-based solutions to curbing CO2 release in favour of an approach based on higher government spending, regulation and control.

Malcolm Turnbull just tore Abbott a new one, pointing out that he is full of shit. I especially love the beginning:

Malcolm Turnbull said:
While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy.

So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.

First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.


To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.

The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words, electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions.

The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement".

It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for.

Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it's cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right.

Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it.

Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....."

Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government's ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement.

Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now open to the charge that we are also without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted to keep our word or maintain a consistent position on the issue of climate change.

Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well. If the legislation is passed, incorporating as it does the amendments Ian MacFarlane negotiated with Penny Wong, then the issue will be settled. It is manifestly in the national interest and in the interest of the Liberal Party that it be so.
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I imagine this is just the beginning. Abbott treated Turnbull like shit for his own political gain on a policy that made good sense and which the Liberals had already won significant amendments to.

Abbott is going to look like the goose he is and Malcolm is going to shout it from the roof tops.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Turnbull gearing up for another crack post abbott martyrdom?
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I imagine this is just the beginning. Abbott treated Turnbull like shit for his own political gain on a policy that made good sense and which the Liberals had already won significant amendments to.

Abbott is going to look like the goose he is and Malcolm is going to shout it from the roof tops.
Malcolm reaped what he sowed..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top