An unstable parliament is not a free pass for Gillard

Richard says:

09:54am | 01/10/10

Pshaw! The old saying goes that if you’re not a raving leftie by the time your 20 you’ve got no heart, but if you haven’t stopped being a che-shirt wearing, carbon-tax yearning, euthanasia-pining socialist prick by the time your 30, you have no brain.

I for one would rather hear the well-constructed and intelligent argument of a senior member of parliament than a rambling exaggerated diatribe from a pimple-faced pretentious git who probably hasn’t even learned to sip lattes yet (but he well, oh yes… he will).

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

10:32am | 01/10/10

bobw :  Having read Sophie Mirabella’s comment , i have to disagree with you. It is a well thought out and factual account of just how things are in the federal sphere.
Lets be clear on the election outcome . Gillard did not win the federal election , Labor was propped up numerically by 2 independents , they do not have a mandate .
Gillard and Labor are now attempting to muzzle effective Opposition and at the same time act indignant when the Opposition refuses to prop them up on the floor of the House of Representatives.
As Sophie has stated , Labor’s idea of ” consensus is a quiet , compliant and muzzled Opposition.
We will have strong Opposition and every opportunity to present positive private member’s Bills in a House which is likely to pass sensible policy from the Coalition.
The Wild Rivers Bill mentioned by Sophie , is firmly backed by Noel Pearson who represents a large section of Queensland Indigenous people .  Bad state Labor legislation denies economic rights to Aboriginals living in the areas affected and the Private members Bill
introduced into the House by the Coalition , seeks to correct this glaring anomaly .
The Opposition will make certain that Australians realise the effect a Carbon price will have on power , which in turn , will affect the price of just about everything we use in everyday living. Food , rent , rates , freight , transport , clothing etc etc etc .  The cost of power has risen and continues to rise dramatically in all states .  If a Carbon price is added , the spiral will start all over again.
It is time we all demanded that Gillard advises Australians just what the full effect of a Carbon price will mean in relation to cost of living.

Reader says:

10:44am | 01/10/10

@ Richard - I"ve always thought that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he/she can entertain simultaneously on the same topic. Her argument is simply stupid, not intelligent. She just can’t get over the decision of few independents who decided to support Labor in government.
Do you think that having a Green Army (whatever is hidden behind this term) is better that trying to work out a way to price carbon by a commitee who can consider all aspects of the issue before it proposes a solution.
The ferociousness of Liberals’ arguments reminds me Louis XV statement saying: “Apres moi le deluge” (after me the flood)

bobw says:

10:53am | 01/10/10

The phrase “rambling, exaggerated diatribe” is a perfect description of what appears above.  To be fair to Sophie (and/or her ghostwriter), it’s quite difficult to produce a “well-constructed and intelligent argument” when one’s conclusion (Coalition = Good, Labor = Bad) is preordained and “reasoning” is retrofitted for the sole purpose of providing an air of logic.

bobw says:

11:52am | 01/10/10

@Wayne:  I’m sure the article does come across as “well thought out and factual” when you share a set of blinkers with its author.  But do you really believe that someone like Mirabella is well placed to provide an objective account of the politically charged events of the last few weeks?  Does it not bother you that the “reasoning” she employs is entirely free of shades of grey?  Does it not cross your mind that maybe - just maybe - she might be just a teeny tiny bit personally invested or emotionally involved?  I tend to think that even when she does happen to hit on a “fact”, it’s probably more a matter of coincidence than design.  Needless to say, a Labor MP writing a piece of similar tone on the same subject would be equally compromised.

Some of the assertions contained in your post are eminently contestable, but I can’t see the point of addressing them one by one.  Maybe it will suffice to say that some of us don’t share a one-dimensional, good-v-evil view of Australian politics.

Sherlock says:

12:00pm | 01/10/10

Interesting. A few of you say that it biased and that Ms Mirrabella isn’t in a position to give an impartial viewpoint yet none of you actually say what you disagree with

mickijo says:

02:08pm | 01/10/10

Tony Abbott did NOT wreck and burn houses or kill those who put in pink batts, nor did he wreck the border control or try to wreck the miners nor was he responsible for any of the ALP blunders[almost everything they touched] This should be emphasised every time Gillard tries to sling mud at Abbott.  It should never be forgotten that the ALP are wreckers,it should stressed each time they forget.

Christian Real says:

02:18pm | 01/10/10

Wayne Fehlhaber
The Liberals did not win the election either as it was a hung Parliament.
Also Abbott is no where near leadership quality, but he will become known in history as someone who reneged on a written and signed agreement with the Independents to provide a Deputy speaker from the Liberal party.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

02:21pm | 01/10/10

bobw :  Please go right ahead and contest my views , don’t let a little debate put you off Bob.
Oh , incidently , i did not make ” assertions ” Bob , i stated facts. Should you wish to debate those facts then i will accomodate your differrence of opinion.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

02:34pm | 01/10/10

Christian Real :  Quite right Christian , but he went closer to a legitimate win than Gillard . Nowhere in my post do i state that Abbott won the election .
I don’t believe you are in any position to judge Abbott’s abilities to be a
Prime Minister but continue with your vitriol against him if it makes you feel better.
Oh those naughty Liberals , they would not prop up Labor’s cobbled together rag tag team of Rudd’s remnants and the loony tunes from the left and a pair of fruit loops posing as independents. Bugger !

Christian Real says:

03:48pm | 01/10/10

Wayne fehlhaber
Abbott, having the ability to be Prime Minister?, in his dreams Wayne. no dececent Australian person would even consider to vote for someone like Abbott who welches and reneges on a signed, written agreement made with the independents to provide a Deputy Speaker from the Liberal opposition party ranks.
But then Wayne, nothing really surprises me about Tony Abbott,who has been caught out lying on the 7.30 Report and a Four Corners programme, who was also found out to have an $11 billion black hole in his policy costings,(no wonder Abbott was reluctant to allow treasury to scutise his costings), and now Wayne Tony Abbott has shown that he has no integrity or credibility, by reneging and welching on an written agreement that he signed with the independents to provide a deputy Speaker from the liberal/National Party.
.

Gregg says:

10:14pm | 01/10/10

Very well said on all accounts Wayne.
And @ Reader
” Do you think that having a Green Army (whatever is hidden behind this term) is better that trying to work out a way to price carbon by a commitee who can consider all aspects of the issue before it proposes a solution.
The ferociousness of Liberals’ arguments reminds me Louis XV statement saying: “Apres moi le deluge” (after me the flood) “
You have a problem with helping nature in as natural way as possible do you?
And you reckon a select committee of believers that is only going to be developing a way of sticking extra costs to the electorate is the way to go is it? , and yes, certainly a flood of all sorts to come from Gillard and Brown.

bobw says:

04:17am | 02/10/10

@Sherlock:  The first thing to note is that recognition of bias does not depend on the fact of substantive disagreement.  But there’s also a good practical reason to avoid setting out specific points of contention, being that it’s just inevitable that some zealot will take it as a licence to miss the point and wheel out tired, irrelevant arguments about mandates and muzzles, provoking someone from the opposite camp to pile on in response.  The “conversation” will then follow a familar pattern in which each side talks past the other and no one is convinced of a single thing.  As it turns out, this is just what happened, even though I was at pains not to pick at Mirabella’s specific claims and did little more than note something self-evident:  she is not an impartial observer of the matters under discusssion, and it shows.

Christian Real says:

05:41am | 02/10/10

Wayne Fehlhaber
If Tony Abbott had any real abilities to judge in the first place, but alas he hasn’t, and that is another reason why he would never make a good Prime Minister.
Tony Abbott will no doubt go down in history as one of the most self serving,  Opposition Leaders of all times, because the only issue that he really cares about is the fact that he never became prime Minister.
If Tony Abbott cared about the Australian people,(the ones who pays his salary)and the Australian Parliament(the one that he claims to represent)then he would not oppose things, just for the sake of opposing, and he would honour the agreement that he signed with the independents to provide a Deputy Speaker to the Parliament.
Like other things in Tony Abbott’s past, especially where he breached Parliamentary rules by not declaring a $710,000 mortgage for almost two years, and previously not declaring a $100,00 slush fund that he had set up to fight Pauline Hanson and One Nation in the courts, he had set the fund up in late August of 1998, but failed to declare it until December 3, 1998.
Parliamentary Rules state: “Parliament requires all MPs to register any changes to interests,benefits or liabilities within 28 days.”
It would seem that Tony Abbott either can’t abide by the Rules of Parliament,or he is simply displaying blatant contempt to the Parliament.

TimB says:

07:51am | 01/10/10

Define “Get over it” Acotrel. See the current feeling of the left seems to be “we scraped in, you didn’t, now please kindly go over there and be quiet for the next few years whilst we do whatever we like”.

Sorry that’s not how Government works. Kevin Rudd was a disaster so much so that he was replaced by his own party. Labor rule as a whole was equally disastorous. So much so that Labor lost its majority.

It’s Labor and its supporters who have to accept the result that the Coalition is entitled to equal say, deal with the fact that they don’t have control over the House of Rep’s anymore, and generally (as you say), GET OVER IT.

acotrel says:

08:42am | 01/10/10

Sophie, Are you seriously suggesting that Abbott is suitable for the leadership of Australia? Just a reminder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&feature=related

Dash says:

09:08am | 01/10/10

Acotrel, maybe Abbott should have used $11b of taxpayers money to bribe his way into office. That seems to be what you support! TimB is correct (as usual). And I think the point of this article is to say that the ALP is in a position of its own making. The message from voters was “be less cr@p”. But it doesn’t seem the ALP is listening or capable! For idiots to now suggest the LNP should quietly give the ALP what it asks for on everything is rediculous. The wrecker tag is mere propaganda and it sits better with Gillard and the back room faceless men of the ALP. Inflation and interest rates are up and rising and a Carbon tax will wreck this economy. The ALP as custodians of stupid economic policy will go down an the true wreckers!

TimB says:

09:13am | 01/10/10

Can someone tell me what Acotrel has linked to? I can’t view Youtube at work.

Denny Crane says:

09:26am | 01/10/10

You mate have no idea.

The way a opposition works is to test the government on issues they believe they need to be accounted on, this has happened whoever has been in opposition.

The only difference this time is that the opposition can actually stop the government, Gillard does not like this at all, if we draw the hypothetical, shoudl another election be needed soon, and Gillard is swept from power.

I can tell you right now, the labor opposition would jump up and down over every policy the Coalition would be bringing in, but as they wouldnt have the number in the reps nothing could be done, so it shouldnt change in a minority governement.

Tony has every right to question Gillard, and so he should, and she is yet to admit she lied about the CARBON TAX, if she was CEO of a public listed company and told shareholders one thing, and did the opposite ASIC would be investigating her, but Gillard dosent care, things have changed, but things havent changed, she changed she wasnt confident in her policys so she sold herself to the greens and independents to form government.

And now she must work those issues out, the coalition havent chnaged what they have said Gillard has, and now she must work with her new found bed partners.

T.Chong says:

09:32am | 01/10/10

Tim, the link is to Abbott saying you cant trust him (abbott) to tell the truth.  Great stuff from a would-be PM.

Nicole says:

09:42am | 01/10/10

Yes, and we all know that Jooolya tells the truth don’t we?  http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-makes-her-mark-as-aussie-vice-captain/story-e6freuzr-1225867940725

Dash says:

09:43am | 01/10/10

Chong - “I fully support the PM”, “I have more chance of playing full forward for the Dogs”, “I was only a member of the socialist forum in my 20s”, “I’m a fiscal conservative”, “We’ll build 200 childcare centres”, “we wont touch the private health tax rebate”, “Root and branch tax reform”, “we have an East Timor Solution”, “The greatest moral challenge of our time”, “we’ll deliver more affordable housing”, “We’ll deliver cheaper better childcare”, “There will be no carbon tax”. All real and tangible lies from your trustworth ALP.

Baz says:

09:45am | 01/10/10

Seriously, did you guys even read the article?  Don’t you think your attacks on dishonesty would be more appropriately aimed at Julia for lying about the Carbon Tax?  Atleast Tony Abbott was able to show some shreds of honesty rather than pretend politicians don’t ever lie.  I just can’t believe you all are so politically naive that they would actually buy into what any politician says.

N8 says:

10:03am | 01/10/10

Acotrel I am curious. Supposing for a moment that I agree with you (which I don’t, but that is beside the point) that the coalition went to the polls with nothing but negative and obstructive policies, no new ideas, the whole nine yards.

What exactly are you proposing they do then? That would mean that almost half the voting public agree with the idea of being negative and obstructive, support the idea of not having new ideas, and all the rest. As such they have a responsibility to pursue that agenda because that is what the people who voted for them asked them to do. Or are you suggesting that the rule is that if you don’t win you don’t speak?

What alternative does the coalition have that wouldn’t be a betrayal of the people who voted for them? What exactly would you have them do given that they must oppose the things they said they would oppose and support what they said they would support during the election campaign?

MarK says:

10:07am | 01/10/10

@TimB - just the Kerry O’brien thing where Abbott made the earth shattering revelation that (gasp) politicians sometimes tell pork pies.

TimB says:

10:32am | 01/10/10

Thanks MarK, figured as much from TChong’s comment. Did try to post a response but apparently the Punch mods don’t like me pointing out hypocricy. Ah well.

Christian Real says:

08:53pm | 01/10/10

Tim B
Tony Abbott failed to become Prime Minister, it’s time for him and his supporters to stop spitting their dummies out and build a bridge and get over it.

David C says:

08:33am | 01/10/10

Wont have to because the majority will be a grazillion to 1

Nafe says:

08:36am | 01/10/10

Jeremy, I hope you can help me to point out where is the Constitution it states its mandetory for the Leaders to Pair or for the Speaker to be paired? I can’t seem to find it anywhere. So unless you can point this out, maybe you should do some research before comenting.

Dash says:

09:16am | 01/10/10

Jeremy, read the constitution! It’s not another Khemlani affair? Also take a look at the primary vote. If it wasn’t for the loony green coalition the ALP wouldn’t have been in a position to bribe its way into office!

pete says:

07:52am | 01/10/10

if woolies and coles were so generous with not passing it on they could have saved us alll a lot of grief and just given free groceries to families with new bubs

Alfred Deakin says:

01:16pm | 01/10/10

I think part of Labor’s problem with Menzies was that he had supported appeasement of Hitler, He had also spent nearly a year in England whilst Prime Minister (some say he was hoping to be appointed British PM!). John Curtin and Labor felt that he couldn’t be trusted to act in Australia’s interests, in view of the emerging threat from the Empire of Japan.

Dash says:

02:01pm | 01/10/10

OMG Alfred, Menzies, Australia’s longest serving PM who presided over the most prosperous time in the nation’s history, was a Hitler appeaser? And he couldn’t be trusted to defend us from the Japanese? You sound deluded!

Adam Diver says:

09:18am | 01/10/10

Spin Baby Spin, good to have you back, your probably the only poster who compels me to rebutt almost every time.

“Julia Gillard ruled out a carbon tax (but not a price on carbon” do you honestly believe what you just wrote.

“In that case, you shouldn’t criticise them when they aren’t able to deliver on promises made before the election because they don’t have the numbers on the floor to do so. ”

That is false, no-one made them obtain a majority with the independants, if they could not govern effectively they had the option for another election. The reason they didn’t take this option is becasue they would of lost.

“It’s called ‘negotiation’ - and if your side had been better at it, rather than trying to bully the independents into supporting you, you’d be in government now.”

Read above, there is a reason the coalition barely tried to form a minority government

Where did you go, during those dark days for Labor? You are not one of those people who support a football team only when its winning are you?

Dash says:

09:29am | 01/10/10

Persephone - the ALP are in this position because they are cr@p and didn’t win a majority. Simple as that. They bought government using $11b of taxpayers money. They lied about “there will be no carbon tax” just as they lied their way into office in 2007. When the inflationary impact of their carbon tax, the profits tax and the 3% additional superannuation bites in addition to continued rises in interest rates, their days will be numbered. The question is, how much damage will they do before hand?

And your comment about non-delivery of promises is rediculous! They didn’t bloody deliver their promises from 07 when they did have the numbers on the floor of the parliament. Where’s grocery choice, fuelwatch, 200 childcare centres, root and branch tax reform, more affordable housing, cheaper better childcare, cheaper books for all Australians, no child shall live without a laptop, well abolish compulsory uni union fees. They had the numbers to deliver on all of these promises and didn’t. The things they did try to deliver they screwed up like the insulation fiasco, the green loans fiasco and the discraceful rorts under the school halls program. Anyone who believes anything Gillard and Swan says after their history of lies and deceit is a fool!

persephone says:

09:33am | 01/10/10

Adam

No, no one forced Labor to govern. Both parties had the opportunity to do so. One accepted the message from the electorate, that its policy platform wasn’t perfect and needed moderation, the other didn’t.

The constitution doesn’t say anything about delivering election promises. It isn’t the premise on which government is decided. There is no obligation on any party to deliver the promises it makes and failing to deliver on promises does not mean ineffective government.

As for ‘barely tried to form majority government’ that’s a ROFLMAO. The Libs tried to outbribe Labor, they tried sweet talk (“I really really like the bush, gee, I’d live there in a second if it were by the sea”), they signed promises they had no intention of keeping, they tried anonymous phone calls from the Devil, it goes on.

Abbott tried his heart out - and, at the end of the day, he can’t even command loyalty from his team. (How’d the vote for Deputy Speaker go?)

As for where I was (nothing to do with the quote you reference, btw) -
I was out electioneering - doorknocking, handing out HTVs, etc - it’s called ‘Direct Action’. Far from being a fair weather friend, I was literally fighting on the streets - and far too busy to spend time here.

MrHonest says:

09:35am | 01/10/10

So much for the kinder politik by Gillard and crew. They dumped and got rid of the previous deputy speaker Anna Burke in favour of nominating Slipper to score purely political points, ask Harry Jenkins what he thinks of Labor doing that. Harry ain’t impressed with Julia and her Labor Party my friend. And trotting out this garbage of the Independents, they had no intention of supporting Abbott from the beginning, they had an axe to grind with the Nats and they took the opportunity, to believe or parrot on otherwise is naive and misleading. There were no “good Faith” negotiations and no “honour” to be had with the Independents from day one. To be part of the committee Gillard has said they have to believe in a price on carbon, which obviously rules out any Coalition member attending as their policy says they will not have a price on carbon. You might like to play the “tricky words and phrases” game like Gillard but that ain’t fairer kinder politik.

MarK says:

09:54am | 01/10/10

“No one is expecting you to support Labor’s agenda on everything. What they are asking is that you don’t play silly games like the one you are presently playing over pairing, simply to make life difficult for the government.”

Labor played the game hard too. Without a pair for Harry they have a majority of one. HTFU and get on with it.

“And btw, if you’re talking of trashing conventions, the right for an MP to a pair is a very old and long standing one. “

Curtin refused this very convention to Menzies. Lets not get too nostalgic shall we. There is no “right” to it.

“So, you broke this agreement, Labor honoured it by electing a non-government member as DS. “

Totally disingenuous. Let us look at this another way shall we. I love a good narrative.

As you rightly point out in the last parliament with a clear majority the poor Anna B was deputy speaker. In this love in paradigm of a 2 vote lead in no confidence motions Albanese of the very marginal inner city soon to fall to the Greens seat as leader of Government business tried to come up with a cunning plan of changing all previous conventions and trashing the constitution by giving the speaker a deliberative vote and having a paired arrangement for the deputy. This would maintain the majority. Very sneaky and aided and abetted by the resident paradigm gurus of Oakeshott and Windsor that are desperate to maintain this charade as long as possible so they have “relevance”.

There. I like that better.

Oh. Yes Abbott broke his word because it suited it him. HTFU.

“Honour the normal conventions”

Ok we will. Let us appoint a deputy speaker from Labor and also keep the constitutionally sound “convention” that the speaker does not deliberatively vote and is not paired.

Done and done. Your complaint is…..........??????

“and keep your promises”

ROFLMAO. Helloooooooo carbon tax.

“You say that Labor’s failure to win majority government means they shouldn’t expect a free pass when it comes to legislation. Fair enough. “

We agree /le gasp

“To get the support of the House, she had to agree to modify this view. That’s what you’d expect to happen with a minority government, and exactly the same sort of thing would have happened if your side had formed one.”

Rubbish. Can’t prove it. I refute it. She lied. She totally ruled out a price/tax/whatever you call it on carbon pre election. 80% of the voters voted for a party that went to the election without a policy to introduce a carbon price. Case closed. She cannot claim a mandate to govern and then use the fact it is a minority government to trash whatever she likes.

“It’s called ‘negotiation’ - and if your side had been better at it, rather than trying to bully the independents into supporting you, you’d be in government now.”

Lets see how this narrative changes as we go along. I don’t buy it. Been over it Roja though.

“A polite invitation to participate in a committee is not bullying. You don’t want to play the game, no one is forcing you to. However, if you’re not involved in the process, don’t complain when it doesn’t work out the way you want it to.”

Err ok. So you want to rule by decree. I get it. If you don’t agree with us too bad. We will do what we want when we want.

How does this reconcile with “they shouldn’t expect a free pass when it comes to legislation.” though.

What you are saying is all they have to do is form a committee with the objective of Labor’s clearly stated invite the coalition along and when they refuse to aid and abet a whitewash say tough luck you had your chance .....law passed.

What type of bullshit is that?

The committee is a sham. Gliiard is in love with committees. It is a joke. She is weak. She wants an excuse to distract everyone from the fact that the Greens have her by the short ones. To be on the committee to decide whether we should tax carbon you must believe in a carbon price. Yeh…..awesome.

Tony “The Wrecker” should go nuts and wreck this big time.

“After all ‘decisions are made by those who turn up’. “

Awwww. How cute. “they shouldn’t expect a free pass when it comes to legislation.” - I thought this was your belief.

Please be consistent.

TimB says:

10:05am | 01/10/10

Persephone, I’m sure we should accept your explanation at face value…after its really none of our business anyway. It’s just the timing is very odd.

I mean apart from one post I saw shortly after, you pretty much vanished the day Rudd got rolled. There was a good month or so between that date and when the election was called, so your electioneering explanation doesn’t quite hold up. Especially seeing as election day itself was 6 weeks ago.

Then to top it off, you re-appear right when Parliament starts up again. Again, none of this is any business of ours, but you can see why many Punchers will speculate.

We do love a good conspiracy!

persephone says:

11:25am | 01/10/10

MarK
Labor honoured the agreement they made. The Liberals didn’t.

I’m referring the long standing convention, honoured by both sides of politics in the past, of pairing ordinary MPs who can’t be in the House for a vote and have - up til now - been able to arrange matters so that this did not disadvantage their party.

Their attitude to pairing - trashing a very long standing convention, in existence far longer than the agreement signed three weeks ago which Sophie refers to as ‘long standing’ and is appalled to find ‘dishonoured’ - shows that the Liberals are being deliberately obstructive, I’m not talking about the situation with the Speaker (which I’m quite happy to say, as chair of many committees, I always thought was an unworkable - as opposed to unconstitutional - idea).

And no, Curtin did not refuse that convention to Menzies. Menzies was paired for the entire time he was overseas, both as Opposition Leader and later when he was PM.

To my knowledge, this is the first party to interpret the idea of pairing in the way the Liberals have. They have decided to go down this path simply to make government difficult, not for any other reason - it has nothing to do with making the government accountable.

The Cunning Plan you refer to was thought up by a panel composed of the Liberals, the Greens, the ALP and the independents. Only one party then ran away from it.

As for the carbon price ‘broken promise’ - the logic of Sophie’s article goes like this: Labor’s policies are not supported by the majority of the electorate. Therefore they don’t have a mandate for them. Therefore they cannot expect that these policies will be supported by the Opposition (of course, this implies that if the government had a clear mandate, the Oppo would vote for every piece of legislation Labor put up, but we’ll just disregard that bit of silliness).

OK, I accept that. Labor’s policies weren’t perfect, therefore people didn’t vote them - and the message from that is, that the promises they made during the election campaign SHOULD NOT be honoured, because they don’t have a mandate.

Similarly, the policies the Liberals took to the election were also rejected by the people and these should also be abandoned.

Can’t have it both ways. Neither side has a mandate, neither side can keep their promises, and the message from the electorate is that neither side should .

So - given that ‘new paradigm’ - Labor breaking promises is not only to be expected, it is what the electorate wants.

And I am being consistent. The Liberals have been invited to the table, to help negotiate legislation on a carbon price. They haven’t been excluded; they have chosen not to take part.

They are under no obligation to vote for the resulting legislation when it comes to Parliament, and the legislation can’t happen without the support of the majority of democratically elected members of the HoR.

So no one’s being railroaded into anything; one party has simply decided not to accept an invitation to be involved. That’s fine, but then don’t whinge about being excluded.

TimB

you have a perfect right to wear tin foil hats if you want to. It’s just that I’ve already explained myself several times already which - if you have assiduously trawled through my previous posts (I’m always amazed at how obsessive I make people) you’d know already, and it’s getting a bit tedious.

Timeline goes: Rudd rolled, I kept posting, election called, I stopped, after election, working to catch up on money missed by volunteering four weeks of my life to electioneering. Absolute end of story.

Big clue, too: it’s school holidays.

Adam Diver says:

11:40am | 01/10/10

“One accepted the message from the electorate, that its policy platform wasn’t perfect and needed moderation, the other didn’t.”

Are you on drugs? It was a vote. What you spin out of it is up to you. Unfortunately for Labor most people went further left (greens) or further right (libs/nats). Let me know how you can compromise such a position after the “message” from the electorate.

“The constitution doesn’t say anything about delivering election promises. It isn’t the premise on which government is decided. There is no obligation on any party to deliver the promises it makes and failing to deliver on promises does not mean ineffective government.”

So what exactly do we vote for. The constitution may not specify good government, but I bet the voters expect it and that the next election will hinge on it.

Also I think TimB sees straight through your spin for your absence from the punch, may need to try harder on that one.

TimB says:

12:38pm | 01/10/10

Adam, I’d be more inclined to believe her if she wasn’t blatantly lying.

Many regulars here commented on Persephone’s absence and everyone knows it started right after Rudd was knifed. Apart from one stray a couple of days later, I’m almost positive no posts made in the lead up to to when the election was called.

And Perse, I didn’t need to trawl through posts for that, a good enough memory is sufficient enough. Like I said, It’s not really our business and you don’t owe us an explanation, but at least refrain from insulting our intelligence with obvious lies.

MarK says:

12:41pm | 01/10/10

@pers

Yes the Libs went back on their word. So what HTFU. The indies went the other way. Good on Tony for not weakening his position.

So now you cry about the “long standing pairing tradition” - not a RIGHT as before just a tradition. Well when you have a healthy majority it don’t matter. Now it matters you want to enshrine it. You have a majority of one. My advice is to use it and stop whinging.

You then ramble on about how unfair this all is.

So what. Deal with it. If you didn’t want a minority Labor government don’t do deals. Your bed. Lie in it.

I cannot believe you went here as well….

“that the promises they made during the election campaign SHOULD NOT be honoured, because they don’t have a mandate.”

NO NO NO NO NO

Rubbish. Pathetic. Weak. Lacking in intelligence.

Here we go. The change it all up argument. What is to be honoured and what is not.

I cannot believe you of all people would be so reckless as to try that chestnut on.

Labor are either the government or not. They are either bound to their policies or not. They have a mandate or not. If they wish to dishonor or cry about not having any these things then GTFO and move over.

If this is your assertion that Labor have no mandate at all then the so called carbon tax committee is a sham. They have no right to pass anything.

What a complete and utter capitulation to the Greens you propose and to any other self interest group.

You are attempting to cowardly run away from everything because of an interpretation.

““There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” “

Her exact words before the election. By setting up the committee she has flip flopped and lied in true Rudd fashion.

Making apologies for cowardly weak leadership so soon in a term is laughable.

“Neither side has a mandate, neither side can keep their promises, and the message from the electorate is that neither side should ..”

Lies and rubbish. Lets re run the election then because everything is up for grabs. Labor should now come out and say it. Labor will bring in a tax on carbon that is a big new tax on everything. Bligh tried this crap in Qld and it ain’t working.

Gillard lied.

Lied.

Now you want to make up excuses. Just like Rudd. No conviction. No soul. No heart. just empty rhetoric and power at any price. Rudd is looking like he really was the brains of the operation and that terrifies me.

“So - given that ‘new paradigm’ - Labor breaking promises is not only to be expected, it is what the electorate wants.”

I cannot believe it.

False.

Wrong.

Pathetic. YOU do not speak for the electorate. Never presume that level of egotistical authority.

I am actually speechless. You are a drone. A party creature with no independent thought process (Mods if that sentence is not printable delete it but it has to be said this is incredible).

“And I am being consistent. The Liberals have been invited to the table, to help negotiate legislation on a carbon price. They haven’t been excluded; they have chosen not to take part. “

You are so inconsistent you scare me.

If you really want to harp on about the paradigm and mandates lets then consider this.

One party took to the election a price on carbon. It won a solitary seat and 12 odd% of the primary vote.

The two major parties took policies that oppose this to the election. They got 80% of the vote.

You cannot seriously say that neglecting to tell the Australian people about a new tax you intend to bring in is not germane information that people were entitled to know about before the election.

Protip you cannot call a committee that requires to believe a carbon tax is necessary inclusive by the way.

I have lost all respect for you. This is an insult to peoples intelligence. It is pathetic. I pity you.

Bookmarked for future reference. There are quotes in here that will keep on giving for years to come.

Billy B says:

12:45pm | 01/10/10

Persephone - persephone oh, persephone you’re back!  Welcome back luvy.  We missed you.

Hamish says:

01:07pm | 01/10/10

Perse, seriously, you can’t really be arguing that the electorate now expects Gillard not to keep her election promises, can you? No one accepts that. Just because she didn’t win the election outright doesn’t mean she can get away with changing her policy position. If you (and Gillard) believe that, then you’re in trouble. You have to realise the average punter has no concept of ‘parliamentary traditions’ and ‘new paradigms’ but I can guarantee you they know plenty about election promises and expect parties to keep to them.

The rest of this argument is irrelevant really. No one cares. The fact is you can whinge and bitch about Abbott not keeping his word or whatever, but the fact is there is nothing forcing him to pair ministers, speakers, etc. So, tough luck really. The average punter couldn’t care less about this stuff. They do care about being lied to though.

Minority government has never been easy which is one of the reasons our system makes it so hard to eventuate. If Gillard seriously thought Tony Abbott would make it easy for her and wouldn’t act like, you know, a politician, she’s in real trouble.

I wonder when the knives will come out?

persephone says:

02:26pm | 01/10/10

Hamish

oh dear, you can’t even see the splinter in your own eye.

It’s wrong for Gillard to break promises but it’s OK for Tony to.

As I’ve previously said, it’s up to the electorate to judge whether it’s right or wrong for Gillard to keep promises and they’ll make that judgement clear at the next election.

Given that there is a long tradition of governments breaking promises, lying to the electorate and then being re elected at the next election, I’m not sure that the voters actually care as much about those as you think.

What they do care about is good government, and that’s the test Gillard will have to pass.

I’m agreeing with Sophie - the government does not have a mandate for its promises. The logical conclusion, following on from that, is that they should break some of them.

If the Coalition thinks it’s so important that these promises be kept, then they should go to Gillard and tell her that they’ll vote to support them.

If they think that these promises should be broken, because the government doesn’t have a mandate for them, then why are they complaining?

It’s your contention that Gillard thought minority government was going to be easy and that she had the right to expect Abbott to support her. It isn’t borne out by a single fact - and I invite you to provide one.

As for pairing, I agree the average punter doesn’t care. I am arguing in the context of Sophie’s article and explaining why the government is calling Abbott a ‘wrecker’.

I point out again: Sophie refers to a long standing convention which doesn’t exist but apparently should be honoured and criticises the government for not honouring this (which they actually did).

So it is perfectly reasonable, in this context, to argue that it is the Liberals who are ignoring convention, not the government, and that they are doing so simply to be obstructive.

If you disagree with my contention that the only reason to abandon the principle of pairing is to be obstructive, please feel free to offer another explanation.

Richard says:

02:44pm | 01/10/10

Actually, the real reason you’re back is because you saw all the publicity Grog’s Gamat got and you thought, “That should be me! No other political bogger could possibly be as inflexibly left-winged and infuriatingly long-winded as the famous persephone.” Am I right?

But anyway, the fact is that both sides are playing dirty. Labor in particuar seem to be hell-bent on trying to corrupt an opposition MP and turn them into a “liberal rat”. Well, ok… bring it on~ it seems that all’s fair in not just love and war, but also in parliament as well!

Hamish says:

03:18pm | 01/10/10

Perse, I think you missed my point. I never said Abbott didn’t lie, I said no one cares if Abbott lied to Gillard. They’re politcians and Abbott is playing politics. Abott lied to Gillard, Gillard lied to the people. I’d rather be in Abbott’s position.

I also never said the Coalition weren’t being obstructionist. Again, what I said was, no one cares. People actually expect politicians to make it hard for each other. I have no problem if Abbott wants to ‘wreck’ the government, it’s actually his job to do so, he is the opposition leader after all. So, I do agree that Abbott is being obstructionist, what I disagree with is that this is somehow bad. It’s not, it’s perfectly understandable.

It’s called politics, Perse and the more Labor whinge about this the weaker and more pathetic it makes Gillard look.

Sam says:

04:52pm | 01/10/10

TimB - I to had noticed to timing of Pers absence and remergence. I thought maybe s/he was a paid staffer. Obviously I was wrong as s/he was already out ‘direct action’ electioneering the day Rudd was rolled.

Welcome back Persephone.

persephone says:

05:03pm | 01/10/10

Hamish

and I don’t have any trouble with all of that - but apparently Sophie did.

I’m just pointing out her inconsistencies.

Christian Real says:

08:44pm | 01/10/10

Dash
You appear to have made a mistake in your comment, the $11 billion wasn’t anything to do with Labor, it was that massive black hole that Treasury found in Tony Abbott’s policy costings.

Steve Putnam says:

09:27am | 04/10/10

The thing I find so amusing about all these postings about carbon is the sheer inability of all these Liberal trolls to argue a position through logically from premise to conclusion—-a bit like Abbott really.
Apart from their difficulties in distinguishing between a price for carbon and a carbon tax, they claim the Gillard government is somehow ‘illegitimate’ or lacks a mandate, and yet they rail at her for breaking promises. Obviously any promise you make in lieu of a mandate is worthless, so where does that leave their argument?

David C says:

08:37am | 01/10/10

yeh come on you must have some great ideas like we had .... pink batts, solar panels, green loans, grocery watch, fuel watch,.............................................................................................

acotrel says:

08:47am | 01/10/10

‘Heres a crazy idea Sophie. Show that yur not just a shrill piece of distraction, why not, next week, talk about your shadow portfolio, ( after all, thats what you are paid for) and leave the personalised attacks on Gillard to the many Right Punchers who will take up that battle for you.’

Yes Sophie, you’d be doing something really INNOVATIVE!

MarK says:

09:03am | 01/10/10

“and leave the personalised attacks on Gillard to the many Right Punchers who will take up that battle for you.’”

All I read here is

LEAVE JULIA ALONE /cry & sob hysterically

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

Adam Diver says:

09:04am | 01/10/10

Perhaps the advice would be more prudent by someone yielding more power, perhaps the PM, you know the one continually attacking the opposition although I am sure she may have other work to do.

Dash says:

09:37am | 01/10/10

Chong, we know all about the ALPs ideas. No child shall live without a laptop, ALP backed builders with their noses in the taxpayer trough under the school halls program, pink batts fiasco, East Timor solutions that don’t exist, root and branch tax reform that’s never delivered, 200 childcare centres never built, a 2020 summit chin wag that delivered nothing. Talk is cheap and lies are expensive Chong! Lets have a committee to discuss that shall we. How much does it cost to buy government these days Chong? Going rate of about $11b last time I heard!

T.Chong says:

09:38am | 01/10/10

Now, now MarK, Im sure you read all the other posts from fellow conservatives. That link could equally apply to all those who get all choked up if anyone speaks ill of Abbott( you know, the Lib leader who only lies if the situation requires it.)
See acotrels link to The 7:30 Report.

MarK says:

10:10am | 01/10/10

@Chong

I am on the record and repeat it here.

I believe the name “The Wrecker” is awesome and suits Abbott.  Hell I am using it as a term of endearment.

Keep at it I say. SO apt.

TimB says:

08:12am | 01/10/10

False. Between the 2 of them, the two major parties captured about 80% of the primary vote. “A pox on both your houses” viewpoint being held by the majority would have seen that figure be much lower.

Just because the result was split down the middle doesn’t mean we don’t like either of them, it just means we like/dislike them equally.

Adam Diver says:

09:10am | 01/10/10

Actually the first time I heard paradigm as the new buzzword, was the 7:30 report on the night of the election, and who used it at least 4 times on that night? None other then Bob Katter but he was referring to bananas, mostly.

Majority says:

09:18am | 01/10/10

pete, I’m pretty sure it was BobKat who first said “paradigm” after the election. And not just once, he said it many times.

T.Chong says:

08:55am | 01/10/10

Rosie, bit of a Freudian slip for any die hard conservative fan to even mentionn"core “promises.
Can you remember who championed “core’ v “non core” promises?
Yep, Abbotts political father. Abbott was also a member of a govt that had no problem with the concept of core and non core.
Funny old world , isnt it?

iansand says:

09:09am | 01/10/10

Translation:  Those bastard Independents never gave Abbott a proper chance to break his election promises in order to achieve power.

Rosie says:

10:31am | 01/10/10

Great you guys realize that the Independents never gave Tony Abbot a chance to break his promises!

Can we now move on and leave Tony Abbott out of this and discuss the Gillard installed minority Govt whose job it is to GOVERN THIS NATION! Julia Gillard is the leader of this minority Govt and therefore makes her the PM. PM Gillard, who now lives in selfish hope, atheist faith and charity from the people she desperately hopes will forgive her for knifing our elected PM and allowing herself without any hesitation to replace him.

Lets talk BIPARTISANSHIP by the two major parties and not just a desperately needed self-styled consensus parliament that only serves Julia Gillard to keep her in power but nothing for ALL AUSTRALIANS!

1. Asylum seekers - lifting on a freeze of the processing of the Afgahanistan imposed in April. This shouldn’t be done so as for Chris Bowen to be seen as taking a tough stance and doing something about this problem that escalated when the Rudd Labor Govt took over in 2007. The Libs have a policy that could make those organising the hazardous trips for the vulnerable think twice about it.

2. Our troops in Afghanistan we hear are mentally and physically exhausted and the pressure is building should be taken seriously. Bipartisanship is very much required and a decision made to whether we pull out or do something to relieve that pressure so our brave men can do what they do best. It is a very serious matter and the Libs want it taken into consideration!

3. Paid parental leave! Now we hear the Govt has taken up the “me to” approach. Bipartisanship is also required as it was the Libs policy in the first place and it was a bloody good one!

Hate to remind you Windsor & Oakeshott installed the wrong party to GOVERN!

Have a great weekend all!

Alfred Deakin says:

08:40am | 01/10/10

Actually 50.12% did prefer Labor, 49.88% Coalition

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTppByState-15508.htm

persephone says:

08:50am | 01/10/10

‘More than 50% of us did not give them a mandate” - incorrect. The final AEC figures show that Labor won over 50% of the 2PP vote.

But it’s irrelevant - Howard lost the 2PP vote in 1998 but no one suggested he didn’t have the right to govern.

Government is determined by who can show that they have the support of most Members of Parliament, not by who won the most votes.

Dash says:

10:04am | 01/10/10

Ah yes Alfred and Perse, thank God for the loony green left preference deal. The same one that has led to the lie about “there will be no Carbon tax”. On a primary basis, 38% selected the ALP and 44% the LNP. Still - lies, damn lies and statistics eh!

Alfred Deakin says:

12:00pm | 01/10/10

Dash, you keep wanting to say that Labor and the Greens are in a Coalition like the Liberals and their lapdogs (sorry, Nats). Well then by your reckoning it’s Labor-Greens 49%, LNP 44%.

Dash says:

01:45pm | 01/10/10

Alfred, it would be great if the ALP admitted their coalition with the greens because I think a lot of people would then think twice before they voted Labor! Do you think the ALP would be that transparent at the next election? Or do you think they would be happy just to accept the preferences and then sign up to a coalition of circumstance where required after the election like they did recently?

Northern Steve says:

03:31pm | 01/10/10

To be fair Dash, the Libs & Nats do that from time to time.  Formally dissolve their coalition during the term of a parliament when in opposition, and then renegotiate afterwards if together they have enough seats to form government.  All above board and openly of course.
It would be interesting to see the results of a Lab/Green coalition deal if they agreed not to fight against each other in particular seats - you know, Labor agreed to let the Greens have the right to contest such and such a seat.  It might work for them in some of the regional marginal seats and inner city seats like Brisbane.

persephone says:

09:38am | 01/10/10

David

I don’t think anyone in government expects this. I haven’t seen any demands for consensus - the government doesn’t need the Opposition to get bills through and doesn’t expect their support.

The idea that this is being demanded by the government is simply untrue.

MarK says:

10:12am | 01/10/10

Well why doesn’t she actually get on with it.

So far she has reneged on a carbon tax promise and has done nothing.

Robert S McCormick says:

11:40am | 01/10/10

Persephone! Welcome back!
Actually Gillard did call for “Consensus” from the Coalition . As for not needing the Coalition to get legislation thru that is only so if every single ALP MP and all the Independents turn up to vote & more importantly if Independent-Labor MPs Wilkie, Oakeshott & Windsor actually vote with the ALP. Though they have agreed not to support any “No Confidence” motions nor block Supply Bills, they have already shown that they will not automatically rubber stamp any ALP legislation.They proved this on Wednesday when they voted & inflicted the 1st Defeat on Gillard, reportedly the first time a Federal Government has been defeated in the House of representatives in, what was it, 70 years.
The vast majority of Legislation brought to a vote during the Rudd Government was passed With The Support of the Coalition! It was only contentious, flawed legislation which was rejected (Eg. ETS/CPRS)
The same cannot be said of the ALP when in Opposition for, it has been reported, and NEVER DENIED by the ALP, that the ALP voted AGAINST every bit of Legislation put up by the Coalition Government during the almost 12 years they were in office.
The Coalition may have rneged on the stupid aggreement to give the Speaker of the House of Representatives a “Pair” & so they should have for (Mr Giggles should have known this)the Speaker has never been “paired” nor is he/she allowed to be. They Deputy Speaker is “paired” when he/she is in the Chair as is only right for when not in the Chair he/she has his/her normal vote as with all MPs.
With such a tight situation may be we will get some decent, intelligent legislation passed. For only the 2nd time ALL Legislation will be debated, amended & enacted in a sensible, intelligent way. This can only be good for Australia.

persephone says:

01:06pm | 01/10/10

Robert

under every government since Federation, 90% plus of the legislation has gone through Parliament with the support of both sides.

This was true under Howard. I can immediately think of legislation which the ALP opposed and tried to have amended but then supported through Parliament for the public good -  the legislation increasing the allocation of money to private schools, for example.

The ALP opposed the Howard government on a mere handful of pieces of legislation. Just as Sophie does above, the argument was that the people who had voted for the ALP wanted these pieces of legislation opposed.

And no, it’s not the first time in 70 years. Fraser lost a series of votes on the floor in 1975 and Menzies lost votes on the floor in the early ‘60s.

I personally think it’s great for democracy that the government has to argue its case and will sometimes lose, so I’m not complaining.

I agree that the idea of pairing the Speaker was silly. However, the Coalition signed the agreement and then broke it - unlike Labor, which signed it and kept it.

It’s a simple fact and you should be able to grasp it.

Northern Steve says:

03:38pm | 01/10/10

Ah, but Persephone, when Labor introduced into parliament the reform package made with the indies, they tried to make a few subtle changes to it, hoping no one would notice.
Isn’t that a bit like reneging, only more sneaky?

TimB says:

03:55pm | 01/10/10

@ Northern Steve:

“I’m altering the bargain. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

persephone says:

05:08pm | 01/10/10

NS
as far as I’m concerned, once the Libs backed away from the agreement there was little point in trying to honour it - it simply disadvantages the government.

So I give all credit to Julia Gillard for honouring the commitment on the Deputy Speaker. She didn’t have to - the job (and the perks) could have gone to someone from the Labor party.

So far, even with the attempted amendment of a far more minor matter, the Liberals have shown themselves to be less honourable than the Labor party.

Why so many of you are happy with this situation is hard for me to fathom.

Northern Steve says:

05:53pm | 01/10/10

@TimB - I don’t get your point, sorry.

@persephone - I do get your point, and you are so wrong.  Having 2 Deputy Speakers from the coalition makes the government’s position in the house stronger!  Al the government has to do is have Harry Jenkins mysteriously ill during vote and the opposition loses a deliberative vote compared to the speakers casting vote.  It wasn’t a favour any way you look at it - it was pure and nasty revenge.

I take it in your perspective then there is no value at all in the reforms that Gillard signed her name to, so not standing by the other 21 points of reform is fine, if the Libs pass on one of the reforms.  Sort of like the kid who cries foul and takes home their bat and ball,except it wasn’t her bat and ball in the first place.  I don’t really buy your comment then that Gillard is more honorable than Abbott.  Gillard tried to renege quietly on the sly, Abbott came out and was honest about it, even if the excuse given was a bit dubious.

Not really a good way to keep the indies on side there.

Richard says:

06:14pm | 01/10/10

Persephone: “as far as I’m concerned, once the Libs backed away from the agreement there was little point in trying to honour it - it simply disadvantages the government. So I give all credit to Julia Gillard for honouring the commitment on the Deputy Speaker. She didn’t have to - the job (and the perks) could have gone to someone from the Labor party.”

You’re ‘avin a larf on this one. Surely you realise it was a tactical decision i.e. If Jenkins was for some reason absent, if the deputy speaker was also from Labor the numbers on the floor would be dead even. Labor would not have any majority at all, relying on the Green, the Tasmanian independent and the 2 rural independents just to equal the coalition + Katter’s vote. It would’ve been too tight, so they made the tactical manouvre to install Peter Slipper instead.

I’m sure you’re just falling yourself to give credit to Gillard for even the slightest little perceived virtue, but if your not prepared to give Abbott credit for upholding the spirit of the constitution, then you can’t turn around and praise Gillard for making a tactical decision of essentially the same nature.

There is a new paradigm in parliament alright, but its altogether more sneaky and sinister than anyone realised at first.

Aitch B says:

07:21pm | 01/10/10

@Pers

‘honourable’? We’re taking politics here…..... you’re kidding, right?

Northern Steve says:

07:34pm | 01/10/10

persephone,
I also don’t find the matter that Labor changed to be minor.  I mean, a second vote when the government loses???  How is that justifiable?

Apart from which, it is not what the indies and the government agreed to before the election.  Pure hypocricy on part of Gillard

persephone says:

07:28pm | 02/10/10

Richard

Once Slipper had been nominated, the Coalition could have avoided having two Deputy Speakers by not nominating another candidate.

If they were outplayed, I don’t think that’s the government’s fault. This is politics, after all.

And no, I don’t see anything admirable in signing an agreement and then pretending that you didn’t understand its implications. Think I can get out of my mortgage payments that way?

You can settle for Tony Abbott - a former Chair of the Monarchists - signed an agreement without understanding it, thereby demonstrating a woeful ignorance of the constitution, or that he signed the agreement to get the indies onside and then looked for ways out of honouring it once they went with the government.

Neither picture covers him with glory.

And it’s scarcely a sensible way to act if - like Abbott - your whole modus operandi is based on the belief that the indis will one day cross the floor and help you form government.

TimB says:

08:12pm | 02/10/10

@ Northern Steve- It was a quote of Darth Vader’s from The Empire Strikes Back.

You mentioned Julia altering the reform deal. Just trying a little joke.

Looks like I failed

Beides, Darth Vader (Original Trilogy) is way cooler than Gillard. Probably a bit insulting to him for me to make that connection.

Northern Steve says:

10:55pm | 02/10/10

Ahh, I get it now TimB.  Very apt.

I wish Julia could get in to see Vader’s speech therapist too - his voice is so much less grating.

Dash says:

09:58am | 01/10/10

Um nosthow, I think you’ll find that more people voted LNP than ALP (primary vote) so by your line of thinking, Gillard is not wanted as PM by more of the Australian electorate! In fact, she’s the only PM not to be voted for twice! The problem is, the “agenda” Labor are tryng to implement is not the one they took to the election. Just as they did in 2007 they lied and then bribed independents with $11b of our money. How proud you must feel! I don’t think you’ll see a lacklustre opposition in this parliament. By the bleating from the ALP it’s been anything but lacklustre!

Christian Real says:

05:12am | 02/10/10

The way the Liberal supporters blatantly attempt to excuse Tony Abbott’s lack of credibility and integrity is pathetic.
The bottom line is that no matter how much rambling and diatribe that Tony Abbott can conjure up in Parliament, the real fact remains that he reneged and welched on a written agreement that he signed with the Independents to provide a Deputy Speaker from the Liberal/National party.
Tony Abbott is on record as saying: “Don’t believe everything I say” and he is also on record as saying that unless it is written statements that he makes, then it is not “The Gospel Truth”
For a devoted Catholic and a Christian as Tony Abbott claims to be, he sure tells a lot of lies.

T.Chong says:

10:05am | 01/10/10

Hey Nicole, lets all get touchy feely, and love each others work, (as long as NONE of us take ourselves TOO seriosly).
‘cause Nickky, I just know your gonna love Collingwoods mighty victory.
Satdys ‘Pies victory gives today a Christmas eve type feel, knowinfg the wonder and excitement to be visited upon us tomorrow.
  ‘Pies to win big time. 

persephone says:

10:10am | 01/10/10

Working well so far, Nicole - Abbott has established that he can’t even rely on his own party members on the floor of the House (there’s one vote for Deputy Speaker, apart from Slipper’s, which must have come from the Opposition).

If his own side doesn’t trust him, why should anyone else?

And please point to one comment from a ‘loyal lefty’ which says Abbott should give Julia anything she wants -  no one has said this. I don’t see any big tants, either.

The more Abbott plays his little games, the less enchanted the indies appear to be with him - he broke his promise to them within days of making it , after all.

His only chances of forming government is by getting a vote of no confidence on the floor of the HoR and then by forming government with the support of the indis or going to a new election.

For either scenario, he needs the support of the indies on the floor of the House.

With each day that passes,he ensures that this is less and less likely and that Labor will be in government for the next three years.

MarK says:

10:35am | 01/10/10

”  With each day that passes,he ensures that this is less and less likely and that Labor will be in government for the next three years.”

Please reconcile this with the fact that Gillard suffered the first defeat in a vote on the floor for a sitting government since…what ....1961 I believe.

In the words of my kids, cool story bro.

Nicole says:

10:48am | 01/10/10

Ok TC, I’ll share my love and hope the Pies win, just for you.

Pers, the Lefty’s are throwing tanties, left, right and centre. Just read some of the comments. The independents….....didn’t something happen this week? Please, refresh my memory. Abbott admits he tell fibs, whereas Jooolya looks people in the eye and lies. She’s incompetent and simply isn’t up to the task. Your Queen will not sit on the throne very long thank God. She hurts my ears.

Alfred Deakin says:

12:04pm | 01/10/10

I for one hope Sophie remains in Parliament for the rest of her days, and in increasing positions of power for the Liberals. Sophie, who used to say, “Never trust politicians”, is one of Labor’s best weapons, so I hope she stays, and is not beaten by some popular local rural independent like many of her colleagues will be in the coming years.

Christian Real says:

04:51am | 02/10/10

Nicole,
I love the way die-hard Liberals like you and others that relentlessly attempt to excuse Tony Abbott’s reneging and welching of a signed written agreement that he made with the Independents.
This makes Tony Abbott untrustworthy,and someone that completely lacks integrity and credibility.
The only one Nicole that can be seen chucking a big tantrum and also continuely spitting the dummy is Tony Abbott, since he lost out becoming Prime Minister.
Loyal yes,but not in a tizz,and from the right wing ,not from the left.

Nicole says:

07:14pm | 02/10/10

Hi Christian,
I’ve missed you. Where have you been?

Nigel Catchlove says:

11:46am | 01/10/10

What the hell is proposing amendments to legislation through the committee process in the Senate?  Are you even aware that goes on?  The last parliament passed just over 80% of legislation despite Kevin’s constant bleating about dealing with a ‘hostile’ Senate.  The same will apply with this government and I just wish that people would do a bit of research before posting on this site.

MarK says:

12:06pm | 01/10/10

Lets examine what they have really opposed then.

Actual (and I use this term very loosely as Gillard has done nothing) legislation opposed/ideas opposed whatever you like.

1. Gillards lie about not having a carbon tax/price under any government she leads
2. The NBN in the form that it is now with no cost benefit analysis
3. A procedural rule on the floor that was passed in the affirmative - meaning the majority of the floor supported it.

Seems reasonably constructive to me for the following reasons in order from above

A carbon tax was not policy at the election, indeed both majors went to the election opposing it. How can holding the government to account on a policy view they took to the election be “wrecking”

The NBN was and is contentious in its current form and goes directly against guideline the government itself drew up for infrastructure spending. They have every right to query it.

They won the vote on the floor. Appears they were correct in the “wrecking”

I really cannot see the problem. It has been like this in the Senate as a mater of norm for years. Gillard needs to stop crying and get on with it. That guy that works for Ken Henry, ummmm Swan?, needs to get some perspective as well.

Crash says:

01:49pm | 01/10/10

Sorry, MarK, just wondering if you can clarify something for me.
Throughout this and other threads you have repeatedly harped on about the ‘lie’ about the carbon tax as a bad thing, but above when Tony breaking his signed agreement was discussed and when he ‘went back on his word’ or lied you responded with ‘So what? HTFU’.
Shouldn’t you be taking your own advice when it comes the possibility of a carbon tax or are you happy enough to have totally different and hypocritical jusitifcations for the exact same behaviour based on partisan preference?

MarK says:

02:14pm | 01/10/10

Sure Crash.

I choose to be hypocritical here. Call it that if you want. I have no worries with it.

Let me say it again just so you get it. I choose deliberately to be hypocritical on this point as you put it.

Let me explain ehy.

Abbotts deal was with the independents - they went and backed the other side. On parliamentary procedural matters designed to prop up a minority government and enshrine the relevance of the independents as a result of the deal.

So very very happy he broke it.

Gillard made a commitment to the Australian people at large to not introduce a carbon tax.

She lied to us all about her intent before the election. We were denied the opportunity to pass judgement on that issue. Nothing was said pre election about reform that included pairing the speaker.

Which is more important to you Crash hmmm?

An agreement to pair the speaker or the pledge not to introduce a new tax.

Are you just asking me to justify for partisan reasons?

Or are you really that concerned that the speaker should be paired in the house.

Which is it?

So yes. Just like if my kids don’t tidy their room I will punish them differently to if they rob a bank.

Not each action has the same outcome nor should each fallacy be treated with the same contempt.

However in your case I guess I know can expect to see you as an unofficial moderator running around tut tutting each tine Phoney Tony is poked fun at eh?

You do realise he didnt junk the whole agreement don’t you? He just won’t pair the speaker. Whoop de do.

HTFU son, Gillard still has a majority get on with it.

hot tub political machine says:

12:05pm | 01/10/10

Just looked at the author photo and the photo next to it of Gillard for the article - same haircut.

Rosie says:

02:12pm | 01/10/10

Geoff you need to make a visit to the Optometrist! Sophie has beatiful earlobes and a cute nose that oozes honesty unlike Gillard who has sagging earlobes and a Pinocchio nose that is becoming longer every day!

Sophie has beautiful natural shinning black hair compared to Gillard’s smoothed out unnatural bottled ranga hair.

Big Big difference Geoff!

Reader says:

02:44pm | 01/10/10

To me she looks more like Tina A’Political Arena

Alfred Deakin says:

12:27pm | 01/10/10

Yes I note Sophie’s line “In my electorate, as in 72 others around the nation, the majority of voters voted for the Coalition.”

I think she must be including the seat of O’Connor won by Tony Crook who BEAT a sitting Liberal, and is now sitting on the cross-benches, and says he is NOT part of the coalition. Face it, the Coalition won 72 seats and is now in opposition - eventually the Liberals will realise this.

MarK says:

12:45pm | 01/10/10

Tony is “The Wrecker”.

Get it right.

Turnbull is “The Terminator” - he will be back.

Gosh you guys are always confused.

TimB says:

01:14pm | 01/10/10

Oooh the Terminator. Another cool nickname.

How come Abbott gets all the best nicknames now? Almost seems unfair.

tombowler says:

02:34pm | 01/10/10

As opposed to your own little claim to fame, the misspelling of “renege” hey there jimmy hunter?

So Gillard was telling the ‘truth’ on the carbon tax? Give me a leader who admits to human failings anytime there matey….

‘grasp of parliamentary history’- My good god man! Your a twat! What grasp of Parliamentary history is this? His refusal to offer unlimited pairing? You mean just like (historically speaking) the labor party did during WW2?

Thanks for playing buddy

persephone says:

09:19pm | 01/10/10

The ALP did not refuse to pair during WWII - or indeed, at any other time.

No one actually said they did. Hockey did a bit of wondering aloud as to whether Menzies had been granted one and it was quickly established that he had been.

But it really is getting a bit desperate to defend the actions of the Liberal party today by referring to events which happened over sixty years ago. We’ll be getting back to arguments about the Conscription referendum next!

Ryan says:

03:55am | 02/10/10

@persephone: can you say hypocrite? Because that is what you are, you seem to have a massive issue with TA reneging on an unconstitutional deal yet see NO ISSUE whatsoever on Julia Gillard blatantly lying to the Australian people. This lack of conscience for the lies spouted to the Australian people shows that your words are as worthless as your hypocritical standpoint.

persephone says:

07:20pm | 02/10/10

No,  I have a massive issue with Sophie pretending that Labor walked away from a convention which doesn’t exist whilst ignoring Tony walking away from an agreement which does.

Politicians break promises. They all do, because they make promises in the context of not being able to foresee the future. Gillard could not foresee that the election would result in a hung Parliament.

Are you pretending that, if Tony Abbott had formed government with the help of the independents, he wouldn’t have broken some promises?

Only the impotent are pure. I’m sure all of you Liberals will enjoy the next three years, knowing that it was only your superior morality which kept you out of power.

And I’d encourage that kind of thinking. Continue to be virtuous and wise and out of power, while Labor governs the country.

I’m sure the rest of us will envy you.

Christian Real says:

08:15am | 04/10/10

Ryan
i also have an issue with Tony Abbott reneging and welching on a signed and written agreement that he made with the Independents because it shows that Tony Abbott’s word is worthless and he can never be trusted.
Only fools like you would continue to support someone like Tony Abbott that has no credibility or integrity left.
Ryan, you and others harp on about Julia Gillard, alleging that she has lied to the Australian people,and yet you and others continue to condone and accept Tony Abbott’s continual lying to the Australian people.
It is you Ryan that is the hypocrite,not persephone.

TimB says:

08:20pm | 02/10/10

Christian, I have to ask…are you a robot?

The way you can say the same exact words over and over again….it reeks of programming.

BTW. The Deputy speaker is a Lib. Doesn’t that make your constant diatribes just a little bit more meaningless?

Christian Real says:

10:04pm | 02/10/10

Tim B
No Tim, i am not a robot, just good at memorising things,without having to have it written down like Tony Abbott.

TimB says:

08:00pm | 03/10/10

You didn’t remember what party the deputy speaker came from though.