Lib Govt's Direct Action now dead?
- Thread starter Dry Rot
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I'm not convinced by the idea that Abbott is untouchable at the next election.
Oppositions aren't voted in, governments are voted out. Given a raft of broken promises, a ruthless budget and Abbott's unpopularity, first as LOTO and now as PM, I see no reason why there aren't sufficient ingredients to ferment the dissatisfaction which could boot him from office.
Labor almost lost 2010, the Liberals will probably lose in Victoria this year, I think that the populace has grown more fickle.
Still a lot of water to flow under the bridge, and I'm not claiming that Abbott is destined to lose, however I don't think it's right to judge Abbott as invincible based on an outdated precedent.
Oppositions aren't voted in, governments are voted out. Given a raft of broken promises, a ruthless budget and Abbott's unpopularity, first as LOTO and now as PM, I see no reason why there aren't sufficient ingredients to ferment the dissatisfaction which could boot him from office.
Labor almost lost 2010, the Liberals will probably lose in Victoria this year, I think that the populace has grown more fickle.
Still a lot of water to flow under the bridge, and I'm not claiming that Abbott is destined to lose, however I don't think it's right to judge Abbott as invincible based on an outdated precedent.
It will cintribute very much if Abbott can use it to advance the meme that Labor is incompetent and not to be trusted with government for the next term.
Sure, one never says never.
depends on the gullible
If Abbott was confident he would call his promise early election
Abbott promise there would be no carbon price/tax , yet it looks like there will be 2 versions at the same time
Labor ets
Abbott's carbon tax in the direct action plan which he promised there would be none under his government
Hunt said they willl , so it doesnt go through the senate for a vote on the direct action alone
abbott is gutless, he will try to cling on to power until he is likely to be voted out in 2016
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
I suppose you can ask the Greens why they don't vote for it, after all, isn't a crappy policy that wont do nearly enough better than nothing at all?
JRoo
Club Legend
No. Thats why we were stuck with the mounting middle class welfare payments rather than wholesale taxation reform since 2001 from JH/KR/JG & TA to date.
Government would probably be able to pass its DD legislation at a joint sitting if Opposition still kept opposing.
Govts usually want a DD in order to get its legislation passed, not for the fun of it.
The other aspect, Smarts, from Abbott's perspective, would be that the more double rejections he can point to the more evidence he has for Opposition opportunism, irresponsibilty and unfitness to govern 
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,078
- 17,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
The other aspect, Smarts, from Abbott's perspective, would be that the more double rejections he can point to the more evidence he has for Opposition opportunism, irresponsibilty and unfitness to govern
The other aspect, Smarts, from Abbott's perspective, would be that the more double rejections he can point to the more evidence he has for Opposition opportunism, irresponsibilty and unfitness to govern
I think you're misreading the play a bit. If Direct Action is blocked, the Libs will just leave it.
No s**t
telsor
Hall of Famer
I think a lot of Libs would see that as the best case scenario...No cost and whenever anyone complains, blame the Senate for blocking it. As an added bonus, a policy they can't implement can't fail to live up to expectations, so they can keep claiming all the wonderous things it could have done.
Getz
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2014
- 360
- 274
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Doesn't it annoy you? This point scoring crap?
Treating Australian's like idiots, and creating a larger us vs them situation rather than governing for Australians?
If it becomes a budget measure its legislated , it will become a law without the senate
so this new big carbon tax in the direct action plan which abbott will introduced , was not promised in the election
telsor
Hall of Famer
Absolutely it annoys me.
Personally, I'd get rid of political parties and have MPs answerable to their constituencies.
Ideally I'd also appoint people on their convictions and attitudes rather than their promises and trust them to make the right decisions.
Sadly, neither are likely to happen though.
Don't blame me, I voted fatty fatso's fatso party dead last.
His stated position (at the last full federal election) is that he wants not only Labor's carbon price scrapped, but a full refund paid to any companies who have paid it so far, including his own companies. He's going to try and block anything he caqn to leverage getting his own way on that. mark my words.
His stated position (at the last full federal election) is that he wants not only Labor's carbon price scrapped, but a full refund paid to any companies who have paid it so far, including his own companies. He's going to try and block anything he caqn to leverage getting his own way on that. mark my words.
Already been blocked once.....
telsor
Hall of Famer
Need to reform senate voting rules first to ensure only votes for the big parties count, and set things up to ensure he looks good/justified calling it. Having the political
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
Since the senate vote has continued to fall for the major parties since sometime in the 70s, I am not sure that would be a smart move.
So much for democracy it's all about bullshit political games. Makes me sick.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Yep.
They're more worried about the micro parties (sports, motorists, etc) who get in on a massive chain of prefs after initially getting only a small fraction of the vote than the minors (Greens, PUP) and *hopefully* will just limit the preference deals a bit by letting people doing their own prefs above the line, but it's not like politicians to give people more power without controls on how they use it, and there has also been talk of restricting where votes can flow to based on how many first prefs you get which is more troubling (much as I can understand the reasons for it).
The issue for me is that several micro parties might be similar (e.g the various christian nutters), but even though they clearly stand together, they could all be excluded for not getting the 'minimum', and while that might be a good thing in this example, it's not really good as a democratic system.
e.g. (I know most would cheer the Christian nutters being denied here, but if you can't see it as just an example, substitute a bunch you're more sympathetic with...I seem to recall a plethora of left wing groups most years for example).
Let's say if parties get <2%, they're deemed unworthy to receive prefs.
The Christian's schism into 8 different groups, each of which, miraculously, gets 1.9% of the vote.
Under the new rule, they'd all be excluded, but clearly 15.2% of the people wanted some kind of christian nutter representing them, and their preference flows all show that, so instead of accepting they've made a quota we're denying the people the representative of their choice and forcing them to elect the next 'big' party candidate on their preference flows (probably another Liberal who would toe the party line on everything and be little more than another number).
Further, if 2% works to make things better they argue (in 5-10 years time), why not make it 3%, or 5%?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Ah, comrade telsor i presume.
Ideally, yes, but sadly realism beats idealism (almost) every time.
I have no problem with Clives position, as I dont like direct action.
But I hope there is a real replacement or alternative
But I hope there is a real replacement or alternative
If Abbott so keen to get rid of DA why would his govt be attaching it to an Appropriations Bill?
Being able to demonstrate he keeps election committments is intrisnic to Abbott's strategy for relection in 2016. I know this isn't very well understood on this forum
