Re: [luv-talk] : Global warming and survivalism (fork from Linux != Poltics)
From: "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Peter Ross <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
The current Australian leadership, at least, reminds me of an elected "absolute monarchy" (maybe that's the reason for the Dames and Knights;-) After election the leader is free to ignore all science and reason.
I prefer to think of it this way: the new government is attempting to implement the central elements of its election platform. As you may recall, these included [.. list]
So surely we can't argue that Coalition voters aren't receiving essentially what they (knowingly or unknowingly) sought at the election.
Of course,just that the government has not the numbers in an elected senate. The demand to "obey" a perceived "mandate given by the Australian people" is bullying. I heard this "mandate thing" so often from Abbott's mouth that someone finally should shut him up - legislation is a bit harder than that, and he is for years droning about the "mandate" people have or do not have, quite often amplified by Murdoch's hate press. The elections prove otherwise, and there is process and rules to follow, even for notorious ignorant politicians as Abbott. His constantly repeated claims belittle Australian voters and damage a democratic society. Regards Peter
Peter Ross <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
Of course,just that the government has not the numbers in an elected senate.
The demand to "obey" a perceived "mandate given by the Australian people" is bullying.
It's just political rhetoric, unlikely to influence opposition Senators.
I heard this "mandate thing" so often from Abbott's mouth that someone finally should shut him up - legislation is a bit harder than that, and he is for years droning about the "mandate" people have or do not have, quite often amplified by Murdoch's hate press.
It's quite possible that the government is preparing to dissolve both houses of Parliament in the event that the Senate doesn't pass certain proposed laws. The rhetoric could in part be preparatory to the election that would then follow. Of course, it's always politically risky to do this, and I expect the current government - like its predecessors - to avoid resorting to such a procedure if agreement can be reached with the newly constituted Senate after July 1, even if that requires policy compromises.
The elections prove otherwise, and there is process and rules to follow, even for notorious ignorant politicians as Abbott.
I'm sure he knows very well what the procedures are and how to follow them. The rhetoric is most likely intended to reinforce support for Coalition policies among voters, and thereby to exert political pressure on the opposition.
Jason White wrote:
Peter Ross <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
The demand to "obey" a perceived "mandate given by the Australian people" is bullying. [re Abbott]
Peter, maybe you should just killfile him, then.
It's just political rhetoric, unlikely to influence opposition Senators.
rhetoric (countable and uncountable, plural rhetorics) 1. The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade. 2. Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress. I guess his rhetoric is of the latter sort ;-)
It's quite possible that the government is preparing to dissolve both houses of Parliament
I was really disappointed when I first realized politicians used "dissolve" differently from chemists.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
I was really disappointed when I first realized politicians used "dissolve" differently from chemists.
It's an antique joke, but: 'Remember: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.'
participants (4)
-
Jason White -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Trent W. Buck