Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[redandblack]

As suggested, a new thread to look at the statements of Tony Abbott.

I'll hold him to these things he's telling us, as I'm told lies aren't acceptable.

Yesterday, he said he would have a double dissolution to get rid of the carbon tax if he won the next election and the Greens voted his move down.

What that means is that he's promising the Australian people 2, yes two, elections within a short period of time.

He's a sandwich short of a picnic.

[Bat Pad]

And the Australian people will get what they want on both occasions.

Where is the issue?

[redandblack]

I'll guarantee that he won't have a double dissolution.

I'm happy for those who have an interest in these procedures to give an opinion.

I'll also predict that he'll backflip on this

If you want to know the political reasons why I say this, I'm happy to oblige, but I'm sure other posters will also tell you why.

[Sojourner]

The only way I can see a DD happening is if Abbott wins the next election but can not get the numbers in the Senate and gets two bills in a row rejected, I would suggest that he would be very keen on a full dumping of the senate and a re election whilst blaming it all on the "obstructionist" parties in the Senate...

[redandblack]

That's reasonable, Sojourner, but if he wins the next election, he would only have an outside chance of getting a Senate majority. Presumably he would have had a big win in the first election and would have to gamble that big majority within a few months, on the basis of overturning action on climate change (albeit a carbon tax) and presumably taking back the tax concessions that go with it.

If not, he says he'll cut government spending. He would have to cut billions of dollars of services and payments to do that, which leaves open an Abbott-style scare campaign against him?

Don't forget that his emissions reduction targets are the same as the Governments.

[Bat Pad]

Much would depend on the next election results on whether he did back flip (as in how much he won by and where). If the Liberals won with a very large majority then I believe he wouldn't backflip.

So lets say he doesn't backflip and a DD was called , that could only be a good thing on what will almost certainly be the absolute issue in the upcoming election (I mean we would need to be invaded, Tony Abbott to come out as homosexual or Julia Gillard a Nazi for it not to). Two parties comprehensively defeated on the issue should be held accountable for holding back what is a clear mandate by the Australian Public, and they get to be held accountable for their actions at the DD.

I actually think that should the Liberals get their large majority and mandate then Labor would not block it in the senate anyway, that would be suicide.

But I agree that without the clear mandate given by an overwhelming victory, he would backflip. It would be too risky.

[Q.]

In 2009, Abbott was in favour of a carbon tax:

"a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change"

Now he's against it.

[southee]

In 2009, Abbott was in favour of a carbon tax:

"a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change"

Now he's against it.

What's the problem with changing your mind .....your leader of the labor party did ....wasn't she against it ????

[redandblack]

I agree, southee, it's only news when Tony doesn't change his mind

[Q.]

In 2009, Abbott was in favour of a carbon tax:

"a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change"

Now he's against it.

What's the problem with changing your mind .....your leader of the labor party did ....wasn't she against it ????

My leader?

[Bat Pad]

In 2009, Abbott was in favour of a carbon tax:

"a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change"

Now he's against it.

Clearly wasn't referring to himself, he isn't a skeptic (at least not publicly)

[redandblack]

"Climate change is crap"

"The science isn't settled"

"Here is my Direct Action Plan to reduce emissions by 5%"

Given that part of the Opposition's argument is that a 5% reduction in emissions won't make any difference unless the rest of the world follows suit, can I ask why he will spend billions of dollars on reducing emissions that he doesn't think will make any difference (and doesn't believe in)?

[Bat Pad]

Tongue was certainly in cheek when I wrote that. I just don't like smileys.

[redandblack]

Yep

[fish]

[fish]

[fish]

[Q.]

That last video cracks me up. I reckon he was mustering every last bit of mental power to hold back from snotting the reporter!

[fish]

Now why would he try to deny meeting Archbishop Pell?

[Sky Pilot]

The job description of "Opposition leader" includes dot points like
Oppose everything
expose BS in the Govt
make the PM look stupid
make outrageous statements on the economy
blah, blah.
Labor and Liberal opposition leaders have been doing it since JC played full back for the Jerusalem Carpenters
Get over it and FFS accept it