Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[stan]

I thought the ads could not get any worse but big Bill came in with his. Christ the quality of the ads are really shitfull at the moment. Can wait till Thursday, bring on the 48 hour media blackout.

[bennymacca]

This seems to me to be a reasonable and balanced position:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/319 ... lebiscite/

Campaigning in Tasmania, Mr Turnbull signalled MPs would still have a conscience vote when asked whether Cabinet solidarity would bound front benchers to support same sex marriage even if it went against their personal views.

Mr Turnbull said the “tradition” in the Liberal Party was for a conscience vote but he expected that opponents such as Treasurer Scott Morrison would “abide” by the wishes of the Australian people.

“I have no doubt that if the plebiscite is carried, as I believe it will be, that you will see an overwhelming majority of MPs and senators voting for it,” he said.

So why do we need a plebiscite then? Why not allow them a conscience vote months ago? The whole thing would have been over and done with

[Psyber]

This seems to me to be a reasonable and balanced position:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/319 ... lebiscite/

Campaigning in Tasmania, Mr Turnbull signalled MPs would still have a conscience vote when asked whether Cabinet solidarity would bound front benchers to support same sex marriage even if it went against their personal views.

Mr Turnbull said the “tradition” in the Liberal Party was for a conscience vote but he expected that opponents such as Treasurer Scott Morrison would “abide” by the wishes of the Australian people.

“I have no doubt that if the plebiscite is carried, as I believe it will be, that you will see an overwhelming majority of MPs and senators voting for it,” he said.

So why do we need a plebiscite then? Why not allow them a conscience vote months ago? The whole thing would have been over and done with

Sorry, I thought the answer was obvious in the quote above...
I'll explain.

Implicit in what Turnbull said is that without the weight of the public vote in the plebiscite the more conservative MPs will likely vote against marital equality.

Clearly, what he is aiming for is an overwhelming vote of public support in the plebiscite which will make the conservative MPs rethink their position and feel more pressure to vote the way electors want,

They need to be persuaded, and can't be forced to vote a party line, because the Liberal Party is a democracy not an oligarchy.

The Liberal Party can't tell MPs how to vote and force a party line. Nor can they threaten to throw them out if they don't do what the leader wants, because in the Liberal Party there is no central Caucus obedient to the leader and the Union voting blocks that has the power to select candidates regardless of local preferences - only the local members in individual seats can replace a candidate, or threaten to.

[bennymacca]

But if he allowed a conscience vote right now there is enough support for it to proceed isn't there?

[Psyber]

But if he allowed a conscience vote right now there is enough support for it to proceed isn't there?

NO!
Many of the Nationals and very conservative Liberals like Cory Bernardi and Tony Abbott and their associates would vote against marriage equality on a conscience vote now because they really believe it is morally wrong. (I've argued the case with Cory personally face to face.)

Then it would not require many more conservative votes from dissident ALP MPs and from minor parties to kill it.
So they need to be shown that the majority of the people of Australia support it,

We more open minded people need to support the Plebiscite, not belittle it , so that the public vote helps persuade these ultra-conservatives to rethink.

[bennymacca]

According to this (which is a bit old now) 55% of total politicians in the lower house and 56% in the upper house that have voiced their views support it.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/interactive/ ... parliament

That is a already an absolute majority in the senate, and the lower house would need 5 of the current 21 undeclared/undecided MPs to vote yes to make it a majority there too

[Jimmy_041]

According to this (which is a bit old now) 55% of total politicians in the lower house and 56% in the upper house that have voiced their views support it.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/interactive/ ... parliament

That is a already an absolute majority in the senate, and the lower house would need 5 of the current 21 undeclared/undecided MPs to vote yes to make it a majority there too

I wouldn't be relying on what any of them say before an election - they will say, and do, anything to get/keep their jobs. You can only trust those that say no
and what happens if it doesn't happen like in 2012?
There are a lot of conservatives on the Labor side as well.

If you listened to David Cameron's speech on Friday night, he said that, although he didn't agree, the people of the UK have spoken and the politicians must now comply. Exactly what I was saying on Friday

[Psyber]

And if you factor the "undecided" from that article it getting through the lower house looks unlikely.
I suspect those who have declared themselves "undecided" may be less likely to be pro marriage equality, and those pro it more likely to declare themselves in advance. (Jamie Briggs in MAYO is one example of the undecided or undeclared.)

So, the key is persuading, by demonstrating public sentiment in a plbiscite, those potential swinging voters, or just nervous, among MPs just not game to declare themselves yet.

[bennymacca]

And if you factor the "undecided" from that article it getting through the lower house looks unlikely.
I suspect those who have declared themselves "undecided" may be less likely to be pro marriage equality, and those pro it more likely to declare themselves in advance. (Jamie Briggs in MAYO is one example of the undecided or undeclared.)

So, the key is persuading, by demonstrating public sentiment in a plbiscite, those potential swinging voters, or just nervous, among MPs just not game to declare themselves yet.

They would need 5 of 21, though I do agree that the undeclared or undecided voters are more likely to vote against

[Jimmy_041]

and if Don Farrell gets back in, there's another "God's soldier" that will vote no

Interesting story on the radio this morning how the Catholic bishops are interfering in the election

Asylum seekers - they have given out cards rating each party - Greens 5/5, Labor 4/5, NXT 1/5 Coalition 0/5 but, according to them, they aren't how to vote cards
SSM - no rating or HTV cards - they just hate everyone: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... ovgcl.html

Time for churches to have their billions of billions taxed

[Psyber]

and if Don Farrell gets back in, there's another "God's soldier" that will vote no

Interesting story on the radio this morning how the Catholic bishops are interfering in the election

Asylum seekers - they have given out cards rating each party - Greens 5/5, Labor 4/5, NXT 1/5 Coalition 0/5 but, according to them, they aren't how to vote cards
SSM - no rating or HTV cards - they just hate everyone: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... ovgcl.html

Time for churches to have their billions of billions taxed

I've always thought it would make sense to lift the exemption from tax for churches.
They could then deduct legitimate business expenses, and expenditure on genuine charitable work, plus donations to any other genuine charity like any other business.

[Grahaml]

I think it would cause a lot of problems if the exemption was simply lifted. Lots of services the government would either neglect (more) or have to pick up at a greater cost than the tax benefit. Perhaps limiting the exemption might be the solution. I think this may be one thing with a lot more consequences than most imagine.

[Leaping Lindner]

The education cut backs have hit hard in Mayo

briggs.jpg (43.09 KiB) Viewed 219 times

[shoe boy]

Away interstate and met up with some interesting character's with interesting views ,Abott/Heffernan/Bernardi/Coonin/Clarke/Cormann/Abetz/Andrews/ just to name a few but was disappointed I didn't get to meet our great deputy leader of our great country Barnaby Joyce .

With the subject of same sex marriage we have the "coalition" religious nuts at odds , and the old far right nuts Bernardi/Cormann/Abbot/ front and centre.

We also have Turnbull making comment ,and I quote "plebiscite will be conducted in a respectful manner" I have said it before YOU CAN PUT LIPSTICK ON A PIG BUT IT IS STILL A PIG.

Stable united team .
Dud Dutton can you please say something !!!

[shoe boy]

When voting on Saturday is there such a box as coalition? or do you tick Liberal and then second the Nationals?

[bennymacca]

When voting on Saturday is there such a box as coalition? or do you tick Liberal and then second the Nationals?

Libs and Nats very rarely, if ever, run candidates in the same seats. They might in some parts but not around here.

[Booney]

When voting on Saturday is there such a box as coalition? or do you tick Liberal and then second the Nationals?

Libs and Nats very rarely, if ever, run candidates in the same seats. They might in some parts but not around here.

Correct.

In my seat, Port Adelaide, I don't even see reason to vote at all! We all know how safe the seat is.

[Dogwatcher]

When voting on Saturday is there such a box as coalition? or do you tick Liberal and then second the Nationals?

In SA, you just vote Liberals.
For the first time in a long time, the Nationals don't have a candidate.
At the last election, IIRC, they had only one candidate, James Stacey - this time around he's running for NXT in Barker.

[Pseudo]

When voting on Saturday is there such a box as coalition? or do you tick Liberal and then second the Nationals?

Libs and Nats very rarely, if ever, run candidates in the same seats. They might in some parts but not around here.

Correct.

In my seat, Port Adelaide, I don't even see reason to vote at all! We all know how safe the seat is.

So you're going to draw dicks all over your ballot slip too?

[Gozu]

When voting on Saturday is there such a box as coalition? or do you tick Liberal and then second the Nationals?

Libs and Nats very rarely, if ever, run candidates in the same seats. They might in some parts but not around here.

They used to especially in Queensland but since they merged there a few years ago and became the LNP no longer an issue in that state.