by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:23 am
by Psyber » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:33 am
by smac » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:43 am
by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:48 am
by smac » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:06 pm
by redandblack » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:10 pm
by smac » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:27 pm
by Q. » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:51 pm
Psyber wrote:However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"
by Media Park » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:16 pm
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:19 pm
Psyber wrote:However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"
by Psyber » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:45 am
Point taken mate, but this is a big one - actually either lying the night before an election, or breaking a major promise, over an issue that could have been a key to the result.dedja wrote:You mean, like a non-core promise?Psyber wrote:However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"
by redandblack » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:50 am
by Q. » Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:17 pm
by Psyber » Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:43 pm
That's a weak excuse - they formed a government after making that promise - the promise should have been non-negotiable.Quichey wrote:As I stated above, ALP weren't elected into Government so the 'broken promise' hysteria is redundant.
by Q. » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:36 pm
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:18 pm
Quichey wrote:It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.
by Q. » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:42 pm
Bat Pad wrote:Quichey wrote:It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.
So you find it acceptable to introduce policy which goes against their own beliefs just so they can remain in power?
by Bat Pad » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:06 pm
Quichey wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Quichey wrote:It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.
So you find it acceptable to introduce policy which goes against their own beliefs just so they can remain in power?
The post-election negotiations involved compromise from both major parties. Personally, I'm glad that compromise has resulted in direct action on climate change and I'm happy that the denialists are having to suspend their beliefs.
by Q. » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:52 pm
by Psyber » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:48 pm
The strength of protest against the ALP since the carbon tax announcement raises questions about that assumption.Quichey wrote:Would I be a politician?
A shift in voting away from the major parties was largely due to neither of them being willing to accept or act upon climate change, so the post election negotiations would inevitably involve negotiating a position on climate change policy.
I don't for a second believe there is much integrity in Australian politics (events in the last decade or two have eroded any shreds of faith), so I would not be surprised at a backflip. The only thing preventing a backflip is electoral annihilation.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |