SA Footy

At the 2007 election, both Kevin Rudd and John Howard supported a price on carbon.

Kevin Rudd proceeded to put up legislation to put it into effect. The Greens opposed it, but the Labor and Liberal parties together could pass it.

The 2 parties literally shook hands on the deal and it was about to be passed.

The right wing of the Lib party weren't pleased and put up Tony Abbott to challenge Turnbull. he won by one vote and went back on the agreement.

Now, there are those who say Julia Gillard doesn't have a mandate.

Do they think Kevin Rudd did?

If he did, why didn't and haven't they condemned him for stopping a policy Rudd had a mandarte for?

mate, we've had an election in the mean time, 2007 is ancient history

It's obviously still totally relevant to the discussion as to whether Gillard doesn't have a mandate for the carbon tax, though.

seems like some clutching of staws is underway...

Except that it's true and nobody wants to address the substance of it

Essentially this is the reason why there is no Mandate R&B, its a little difficult to claim a mandate for something that you have openly lied to the public about prior to an election! In Rudds case, did he approach an elections stating that he would not introduce a price on carbon?

Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax August 17, 2010

Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.

Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,''
she told Network Ten. ''What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change.The Prime Minister boasted that Labor had invested ''record amounts'' in solar and renewable technologies.

''Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid,'' she said.

AAP

Sojourner, as I keep saying, do you acknowledge that she also said (a day before the election) that she would move to a carbon price?

Do you acknowledge that she doesn't have a majority in her own right and has since had to compromise with The Greens and Independents?

Do you acknowledge that Tony Abbott has said that if you want to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is the easiest and least disruptive way to do it?

Do you acknowledge that Julia Gillard isn't the first politician to break an election promise?

Do you acknowledge that John Howard (despite going to an election later with it) said there will 'never, ever' be a GST?

Which part of 'Never, ever" meant until I change my mind?

Do you acknowledge that Malcolm Turnbull yesterday said that Tony Abbott has changed his mind on climate change action several times?

Do you acknowledge that Tony Abbott has barred Malcolm Turnbull from appearing on political TV shows?

Do you acknowledge that there is no such constitutional thing as a 'mandate' in Australian politics?

Do you acknowledge that both Rudd and Howard went to the 2007 election advocating a carbon trading system and that Abbott assumed the leadership to stop it?

Do you acknowledge that the alternative government's climate change policy has the same targets as the governments, but it is uncosted and will cost each of us far more than the policy its opponents are up in arms about?

That's for starters

All that above is irrelevant R&B in view of the facts that Sojourner posted immediately above yours.
No amount of wriggling counters that clear promise and its blatant reversal for expedience sake.

OK, Psyber, let's discuss it from that point of view.

Let's accept she lied before the election and that is inexcusable even if circumstances have changed. Is that fair?

My take, therefore, is that there is an election when the constitution says it's due and she has to answer to the people then.

Do you have an alternative view?

redandblack wrote:OK, Psyber, let's discuss it from that point of view.
Let's accept she lied before the election and that is inexcusable even if circumstances have changed. Is that fair?
My take, therefore, is that there is an election when the constitution says it's due and she has to answer to the people then.
Do you have an alternative view?

No, I accept that.
The only other option is an earlier election if some of the independents lose their nerve and bail out leaving her unable to maintain a government.
Even then - IIRC - the GG could possibly just appoint someone else who can form a government without an election - is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

If the independents or anyone else changed sides to support Abbott and Abbott could demonstrate to the GG that he had the confidence of the House of Reps, the GG could (and if I'm not mistaken) appoint TA as Prime Minister, without the need for an election.

In that case, though, I suspect Abbott would go to an election anyway, as he would win easily in such a circumstance.

Sojourner wrote:Essentially this is the reason why there is no Mandate R&B, its a little difficult to claim a mandate for something that you have openly lied to the public about prior to an election! In Rudds case, did he approach an elections stating that he would not introduce a price on carbon?

Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax August 17, 2010

Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.

Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,''
she told Network Ten. ''What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change.The Prime Minister boasted that Labor had invested ''record amounts'' in solar and renewable technologies.

''Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid,'' she said.

AAP

I think that is the issue right there.

Labor didn't win the election in their own right.

Of course she lied, regardless of the change in political makeup after the election which has forced her hand , she has lied.

Does she have a mandate?

Well no such constitutional term exists, all she needs is both houses to pass any piece of legislation proposed, therefore I have no problem.

The government will be judged at the next election.

So many election promises broken throughout our history, this is just another one.

Not without an election occurring, I don't think Psyber.

I think R&B is basically asking for Julia's forgiveness in the context that her actions aren't completely unprecendented.

I think the difference with the GST though is that Howard initially said "never"and then changed his mind and took it to an election.

What colour's Julia's backflip is that her commitment was made amidst an election campaign (6 days out) and we are in that 3 year term following that very election.

That's a fair point, S.

I'm not saying she should be 'forgiven' though. She has to wear that when the election is due.

Perhaps I could ask you to look at my comments as deploring the over the top (IMO) reaction to the announcement of the policy. Calls to assassinate her and the hysterical shock jock outrage IMO are a dangerous development in Australian politics.

Calls for an election over it are just silly and ignore the Constitution. The voters will throw her out at the right time if they think fit.

I'm not the only one saying this. Even Liberal MP's are worried about a similar incident to the US Congresswoman happening here. I don't think that's likely, but there's a nasty tone to all this.

Finally, on The Drum today, another view:

Warning, it's funny and well-written, but it's long, so some won't want to bother.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2794652.html

redandblack wrote:That's a fair point, S.

I'm not saying she should be 'forgiven' though. She has to wear that when the election is due.

Perhaps I could ask you to look at my comments as deploring the over the top (IMO) reaction to the announcement of the policy. Calls to assassinate her and the hysterical shock jock outrage IMO are a dangerous development in Australian politics.

Calls for an election over it are just silly and ignore the Constitution. The voters will throw her out at the right time if they think fit.

I'm not the only one saying this. Even Liberal MP's are worried about a similar incident to the US Congresswoman happening here. I don't think that's likely, but there's a nasty tone to all this.

Finally, on The Drum today, another view:

Warning, it's funny and well-written, but it's long, so some won't want to bother.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2794652.html

really?!?! assasinate her? thats a bit over the top. while i dont support her and her carbon tax i wouldnt kill her for it....i would cause shes a filthy ranga though

BIG SEXY wrote:

redandblack wrote:That's a fair point, S.

I'm not saying she should be 'forgiven' though. She has to wear that when the election is due.

Perhaps I could ask you to look at my comments as deploring the over the top (IMO) reaction to the announcement of the policy. Calls to assassinate her and the hysterical shock jock outrage IMO are a dangerous development in Australian politics.

Calls for an election over it are just silly and ignore the Constitution. The voters will throw her out at the right time if they think fit.

I'm not the only one saying this. Even Liberal MP's are worried about a similar incident to the US Congresswoman happening here. I don't think that's likely, but there's a nasty tone to all this.

Finally, on The Drum today, another view:

Warning, it's funny and well-written, but it's long, so some won't want to bother.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2794652.html

really?!?! assasinate her? thats a bit over the top. while i dont support her and her carbon tax i wouldnt kill her for it....i would cause shes a filthy ranga though

Great Post.

wycbloods wrote:

Sojourner wrote:Essentially this is the reason why there is no Mandate R&B, its a little difficult to claim a mandate for something that you have openly lied to the public about prior to an election! In Rudds case, did he approach an elections stating that he would not introduce a price on carbon?

Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax August 17, 2010

Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.

Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,''
she told Network Ten. ''What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change.The Prime Minister boasted that Labor had invested ''record amounts'' in solar and renewable technologies.

''Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid,'' she said.

AAP

I think that is the issue right there.

Labor didn't win the election in their own right.

theres some straws!

maybe you should worry more about posts that talk about assasinating our PM instead of how many straws i am clutching at .

If we had an election every time Abbott said "NO" to something we'd have had 3,473,345 elections since the last election!