Green Chaos Down Under – Battle Over Climate Policy May Bring Down Aussie Government

For those of us with no clue….
….can someone give a quick description of their parties?
Labor, Liberal, and Green

I believe its:
Labor = leftist
Liberal = conservative
Green = whackos

Latitude,
Roughly:
Labor = UK Labour = US Democrat
Liberal = UK Conservative = US Republican
Green = Green

These leftists really do love to rewrite history dont they? How they dare to spin a terminal decline in popular support for labour that started with the ridiculous Rudd and his anti plant food tax plan is simply staggering, how they get away with such easy to nail lies is a clear sign of how politicians have bought off and silenced the MSM. Rudds regime was quite popular until he unveiled his climate policies, when the public saw them he became about as popular as a funnel web spider in ones underpants.
Kevin Rudd lies like a rug and not one MSM source has highlighted the time line or compared a graph of the point labour polls fell through the floor and the point at which Rudd unveiled his carbon pricing and tax, and those two points in time match exactly. So the politicians feel able to lie, it is no wonder when the MSM fails so miserably to bring them to account for those lies. This is the CAGW fraud at work, the sheer dishonesty that the political class engage in and can walk away from and then rewrite that history at their leisure.

Latitude: *very* roughly, assuming you’re in the US – Liberal=Republican, Labor=Democrat, Green… well, they’re the same the world over.

So Rudds arguing he wanted to keep the CO2 tax, sorry air grab, darn. Carbon pricing scheme?

John says:, February 24, 2012 at 7:50 am
“I believe its:
Labor = leftist
Liberal = conservative
Green = whackos”
No it is:
Labor = communists
Liberal = conservative
Green = whacko communists

John says on February 24, 2012 at 7:50 am

I believe its:
Labor = leftist
Liberal = conservative
Green = whackos

Almost. In reality it is:

Labor = leftist
Liberal = at worst, centrist … ie, not so leftist
Green = whackos (an excellent characterization)

Latitude see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia
Australian Labor Party — Social democracy — Socialist International
Liberal Party of Australia — Liberal conservatism — International Democrat Union
National Party of Australia — Rural conservatism — none
Australian Greens — [self-snip] — Global Greens
Democratic Labor Party — Social conservatism — none
Katter’s Australian Party — Agrarian economic nationalism, social conservatism — none
Looks like Julia Gillard is a Socialist.

Cassandra King
That is exactly the way I remember it also. And if you did not spell Labor like a Canadian or Brit (labour), I would assume you an Aussie. Gillard gained the upper hand by promising not to implement a carbon scheme, She not only broke that promise, but commenced to see how she could destroy the mining industry, commercial farming,forestry, etc.

Labor Party in OZ are the incumbents. Comparisons to GOP are non-sequitur. Bloody press!

The only place greens belong is in a salad….

Not sure of the Aussie political spectrum but here is the Canadian spectrum relative to the USA.
Canadian NDP, they are moderate socialist (there is no USA equivalent)
.
Canadian Conservative = slightly left of USA Democrat
.
Canadian Liberal = left of US democrat (it was a Canadian Liberal Paul Martin that balanced our federal budget! It seems if you want a balance budget go for a liberal, can you say Bill Clinton)
.
NO Canadian equivalence = USA Republican (Canadians view US Republicans as capitalist extremists that can’t get rogue bankers, business’s and wars under control. This will eventually sink America, the same as socialist extremism has in the EU. Left and Right political extremes lead to the same place.
I am a social Liberal and fiscal Conservative; I will swing my vote depending on what the times require. BTW I believe Unions are essential to balance the large corporate extremists, it’s all about balance.

The only difference between Rudd and Gillard is that Rudd doesn’t wear a skirt… 😉

The story of the lost shoe of Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard? See http://newsblogged.com/video-australia-pm-julia-gillard-loses-shoe-australia-day-protests-canberra

The title of this post is misleading though. This is not a battle over Climate Change Policy or even anything remotely like that. Statements from the two contenders, PM Gillard and former-PM Rudd might lead you to think that its a factor, but it isn’t.
This is a battle over power and control. It is Politics-101, politics simpliciter, its just that it is being played our PUBLICLY instead of having the power struggles and bloodletting done behind closed doors which is how its usually done.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) originally had a conservative group within it, but they had a split decades ago and the conservative (mostly Catholics) within the ALP left and formed the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). Thus the ALP lost any pretense at conservatism and in the process it lost its soul.
The Liberal Party and Nationap Party (LNP) coalition brings together a bunch of groups: the mostly small-L Liberals who believe in small government and less government interference, fiscal conservatives who believe in less government spending, lower taxes, and so on, plus the rural conservative/traditionalists (the National Party group) mostly farming communities.
That’s a simplification and its just my view. Others may have different ideas on it.
PM Gillard is a formerly fairly extreme leftist. A lawyer by profession. Dry as a bone; not an ounce of compassion or empathy with the general population that I’ve observed. She initiated the political stab-in-the-back that removed an unsuspecting PM Rudd 2 years ago. Ruthless. But for a lawyer, not overly bright IMO and a very poor communicator. She never had a personal conviction she wouldn’t jettison in a heartbeat or adopt if she thought it would gain her an advantage.
Former PM Rudd is a former diplomat type. A control freak when he was PM. Hated by a big majority of his colleagues as a result. Insufferable person. I was glad to see the back of him. Its just a shame that Gillard turned out so badly; I originally thought she might make a good PM. Boy was that assessment wrong.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott is a VERY interesting character. Regularly suffers from character assassination in the media and from his opponents, mostly their characterisation of him as a throwback to an undesirable past. Conservative (very!). Christan (Catholic). Rhodes scholar. nearly went into the priesthood as a young man. Volunteers several weeks of his time each year to work with disadvantaged Aboriginal communities (very low profile about this personal community work that he does). Action man, often seen running, swimming or riding his bike.

No time for Aussie politics subtleties – simply curious:
a. Is Gillard more nonalarmist than Rudd?
b. Is Rudd more alarmist than Gillard?
all we need know
all else = noise
alarmism drives MADness
(tendency towards mutually assured destruction)
Suggestion for sensible folks worldwide:
Let’s aim for peace in the climate wars by winter solstice.
“Impossible don’t exist!” — Outasight
The fearful can be inspired towards serenity by nature’s beauty:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#comment-902967
Regards.

Sun Spot says:
February 24, 2012 at 10:24 am
.

Canadian Liberal = left of US democrat (it was a Canadian Liberal Paul Martin that balanced our federal budget! It seems if you want a balance budget go for a liberal, can you say Bill Clinton)

I always laugh when I hear people claim that Paul Martin balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit in Canada. He even wrote a book about it so it must be true. If you lived through the 1980s in Canada you may recall a guy named Preston Manning who, for over 2 years, said nothing but “eliminate the deficit”. Manning was so popular in the west that he destroyed the Conservative party nationally and rebuilt it from Calgary, almost from scratch starting with the Reform Party (I voted for them in Ontario). During this time the Liberals were so afraid of Manning they did what good Liberals do – they stole his platform. By balancing the budget (Manning’s sole political agenda), they made the Conservative party look too one-dimensional to form a government – which Manning never did. This led to successive Liberal governments that basically did the same thing over and over – talk like Liberals and rule like Conservatives.
It’s even funnier today because Stephen Harper – a strict fiscal Conservative – is talking like a Conservative and ruling like a Liberal. Despite claims that Canada is alright, we have had high deficits, a growing debt and we have never “enjoyed” more federal employees than under Harper.
.
The Conservatives have rightly warned Canadians that our social welfare system is unsustainable, especially our public pension system. With the number of Canadians retiring over the next twenty-five years expected to more than double (from 4.2 million to over 9 million in 2036), our government estimates that retirement costs are set to triple. And when Canadians get grumpy about doing something now, the first reply heard is “don’t worry, people who have retired already will not see any reduction in their benefits” (Diane Finley – Minister of Old People). Kicking the can down the road has become so common place, we become afraid if a government threatens not to do it (by taking action now).
First:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/finley-to-make-the-case-for-old-age-security-overhaul/article2344215/
Then:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/todays-seniors-wont-be-affected-by-oas-cuts-minister-of-human-resources-diane-finley-personally-assures/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canwest%2FF244+(Financial+Post+-+Top+Stories)/

The Labor Party caucus (all members of both Houses) have a very hard decision to make:
– Do they back Gillard, who is easy to manipulate and work with, but is hated by the public and guaranteed to lose the next election (ie: they’ll lose their jobs)?
– Do the back Rudd, who is very difficult to work with, but loved by the public and puts Labor in position to be a very serious contender for the next election (ie: they’ll keep their jobs)?
Galaxy poll released today shows under Gillard, the Labor Party would be hosed with an 8% margin, but under Rudd, they would be a contender with only a 2% margin.

Richard deSousa says:
February 24, 2012 at 10:38 am
The only difference between Rudd and Gillard is that Rudd doesn’t wear a skirt…
Gillard’s origins were as a union lawyer – in a party dominated by the unions – the party is also divided internally into various Left/Right factions usually State based – very tribal. So her power base is very traditional union Labor you could say. Rudd was a technocrat and has zero union power base – no support base in the factions – so they are very different political animals. That is why he is always appealing to the “people”. He is unpopular in the parliamentary party but popular if he walks into a shopping mall.
It looks (Saturday morn) as if Rudd’s bid will fail – unless he can dissolve some of Gillard’s support over the weekend.
Zeke says: That internecene killing in the Labor party to push forward as fast as possible to an emissions trading scheme is beyond my comprehension,
I know it is difficult to get a grip on Zeke – but it is like this. Labor have engineered this big new tax (The Carbon Tax) which will from mid this year will start to produce an avalanche of revenue – from as Gillard say’s – “the big polluders”. Except for rising power bills and other cost of living things – the hit will not fall directly on Labor voters. Labor has already spelled out that they intend to amply compensate those affected (read Labor voters). I forsee a blizzard of cheques mailing out to all those in receipt of Govt pensions of many and divers types, dole payments etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28Australia%29
Then there will be tax measures to compensate the “working poor” and those income groups up to some magic cut-off point which will be skilfully calculated to provide max benefit to Labor voters.
There will also be compensation to industries where union jobs (read Labor voters) can best be protected.
So Gillard’s hope lies in all the above working well to raise her approval ratings before the next Fed election which normally would be in late 2013.
You get the picture.

“The bloodletting inside the Labor Party is nothing short of animalistic.”
It is always a pleasure to watch an internal socialist party bloodbath in full flow…

The questions have probably already been answered, but the short version of Australia’s excse for politics is as follows:
Labor = left of centre; like the UK Labour or US Democrats (we had an Australian Democrats party, but no one with a brain gives a toss about those moaning political ‘science’ graduates anymore). Lbor are meant to be ‘the worker’s party, but are like the British ‘New Labor’ (more or less conservative but couldn’t manage the books if their lives depended on it). Will in all probability (and indeed hopefully) disappear into ‘who-cares’ obscurity when the pompous, arrogant whackers are annihilated at the next election.
Liberal = right of centre, like the UK tory/conservatives or US Republicans. Normally sensible party who can actually manage the books, but are hated by unions, artistes and dole bludgers because their policies reward effort and innovation instead of slothenly idleness and hands out for more benefits. Will win the next election in a landslide regardless of who is in charge of either party.
Nationals = as above but appeal to rural voters for their base.Since almost no one lives in Rural Australia anymore these guys are never contenders for a majority which is unfortunate since they have their feet properly on the ground. Liberal and National are alway joined at the hip come election time, so voters who aren’t on drugs vote for ‘the coalition’, which unfortunately now might sound like a group aiming to invade sovereign oil producing nations without legitimate cause, but rest easy.
Greens = does anyone need this spelled out? Watermelons; green skin with a red core and a grip on reality so tenuous you’d wonder out loud what colour the sky is on their home planet.The manifesto is the same all over the world and it could only make sense to a deranged art students, hard core shop stewards (of the sort who ruined manufacturing in every developed western country whose populations wonder why nothing is made at home any more), Greek tax evaders and serial dole bludgers. You’d have to smoke plenty of green to actually vote for these retards, and it is telling that the Green’s voter base are trendy, politically correct, inner city dwelling, bourgeois, smug overdosed tree huggers whose only environmental concerns are to secure a safe local habitat to park their Volvo or Pious in.
Green’s defence policy gives an idea of the level of rod-walloping going on in their commune:
1.genuine security rests on cooperation, fair economic and social development, environmental sustainability, and respect for human rights, rather than on military capabilities.
2.non-violent conflict management is the most effective means of promoting peace and security in the international arena.
3.UN mandated military action should be a last resort and can only be justified if it is necessary either to avert a major violation of human rights or attempted genocide, or to counter the military invasion of a country.
4.civil society organisations, including ethnic and women’s groups, should be fully involved in conflict prevention, peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction.
..
9.to reduce the threat of terrorism, the social and economic injustices which contribute to terrorist actions should be addressed.
10.climate change represents the greatest threat to world peace a.nd security.
11.environmental degradation caused by sea-level rise and other climate change impacts will increasingly result in the displacement of people, undermining global peace and security.
There must have been something in the water during the last election down under, that or more likely it’s because the conservative party are just as insipid as all western political parties are right now; no far reaching policies, just a short list of non-issues to try and fear monger about.
Must be about time for another dose of real but unwanted news; when is the second great depression followed by WW3 supposed to be kicking off?

I think the time will come when Tony Abbott will realise the greenhouse conjecture is a fraud.* He listens to people like Monckton – and I keep trying too. Julia will win on Monday, but what will really ruin their chances in 2013 is that Rudd has vowed not to challenge again, so he won’t be their leader for the next election.
We Australians do consider we are voting for a particular PM when we vote for a party. In reality, it’s rarely a case of who would be the best local member. I believe Rudd would have a better chance than Julia, but Abbott wil lick them both. Julia will probably lose the support of Christians (and also Roman Catholics) while she continues to live in “sin” with her partner.
* The reason the GHE is a fraud relates to the absorptivity of the surface when the source is low energy, low frequency radiation from a much cooler atmosphere. See my expanded and updated ‘Radiation’ page which is suddenly rather popular http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html
.

The following, written about Rudd by one former ALP speechwriter, explains why (a) Rudd will lose the ballot on Monday; and (b) why ALP members of parliament will vote for someone they know will lose the next election (Gillard) rather than someone who might give them a fighting chance (Rudd):
———— begin quote:
The truth is, Rudd was impossible to work with. He regularly treated his staff, public servants and backbenchers with rudeness and contempt. He was vindictive, intervening to deny people appointments or preselections, often based on grudges that went back years.
He made crushing demands on his staff, and when they laboured through the night to meet those demands, they received no thanks, and often the work was not used. People who dared stand up to him were put in “the freezer” and not consulted or spoken to for months. The prodigious loyalty of his staff to him was mostly not repaid. He put them down behind their backs. He seemed to feel that everyone was always letting him down. In meetings, as I saw, he could emanate a kind of icy rage that was as mysterious as it was disturbing.
He governed by – seemed almost to thrive on – crisis. Important papers went unsigned, staff and public servants would be pulled onto flights, in at least one case halfway around the world, on the off chance that he needed to consult them. Vital decisions were held up while he struggled to make up his mind, frequently demanding more pieces of information that merely delayed the final result. The fate of the government seemed to hinge on the psychology of one man.

Galaxy, Neilson and Newspoll have all been brought forward to be out this weekend instead of during next week as they should.
All three make the following statements obvious:
– Under Gillard, Labor would be destroyed with predicted swings between 5-8% (in Aussie politics anything greater than 5% swing is massive). Guaranteed loss and lots of job losses for their MP’s.
– Under Rudd, Labor would still be a contender to retain power, though the job would be hard. Possible win and MP’s keeping their jobs.
– Liberals look to win power under either leader.
If I were a Labor MP in a marginal seat I’d be looking to the future and assessing whether I still wanted my job after the next election, even if in Opposition it’s better than being embarrassingly fired by your electorate.
My prediction: Gillard currently leads Rudd 2 votes to 1, but I think over the weekend and when the ballet is actually taken on Monday morning, a number of Gillard supporters will change their vote. But I don’t think Rudd can get the win. If Rudd can get 45+ votes (52 votes are needed for the win), that causes a huge embarrassment for Gillard who continuously harps on about how all of caucus supports her.
End of the day, Labor is dead next election. It’s a choice of how dead they want to be.

woodNfish said @ February 24, 2012 at 8:36 am

Labor = communists
Liberal = conservative
Green = whacko communists

Get real! Labor has three factions: Left, Centre Left and Right. The Liberal/National Coalition has two: Wets and Drys. There have been many Wets who were to the left of Labor’s Right. Green support has largely come from disaffected Labor and Coalition supporters.

John from CA said @ February 24, 2012 at 8:55 am

Looks like Julia Gillard is a Socialist.

Given that she’s a member of the Left faction, that’s not a particularly stunning conclusion.

Australian Labor will lose the election, because Gillard will win the leadership spill on Monday morning, 10:30 AEST.
I think it will go like this:
Gillard wins. Then in 18 mths time (probably less), Tony Abbott of the LNP win the next general election, comfortably.
If Rudd decides at a second tilt at the leadership between now and the next election, he will face the following:
A..Lack of time. When he loses on Monday, he will have been essentially “put back into his box” for at least 6 mths. If he then gets another sniff on for the leadership he will need at least 8 weeks of back room dealing. That puts him just 12 mth (probably less) out from the election.
B.. In that 12 mth period, he will have to confront the very real possibility of another GFC, this time without a MASSIVE war chest of cash (which Abbott’s predecessor built up over 12yrs) to soften the blow.
C..The possibility of a Republican POTUS in Nov 2012, who will kill off any hope of an international Carbon Trading Scheme, making the Australian look even more foolish and unsustainable.
D..A cabinet of untested freshmen (to us a US term) front bench ministers, because many of the sitting, experienced MP’s have publicly said they will not be part of his cabinet.
E.. Going into the election carrying the weight of the lame duck Carbon tax, which he can’t do anything about, because of the Green’s controlled senate. Although it wasn’t his plan, he’ll be lumped with it because it was a “Labor” plan.
F.. Going into the next election with a tired, battered party who hasn’t had a good thing written about them since Rudd said “sorry” to the Australian aboriginals all those years ago.
The probelm is, that Abbott cannot repeal the carbon tax because of the way the legislation has been drafted. The tax creits are essentially “assets”, and has such it would be unconstitutional for the Gov of the day (future) to tamper with the value of them.

Doug Cotton said @ February 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm

We Australians do consider we are voting for a particular PM when we vote for a party. In reality, it’s rarely a case of who would be the best local member. I believe Rudd would have a better chance than Julia, but Abbott wil lick them both. Julia will probably lose the support of Christians (and also Roman Catholics) while she continues to live in “sin” with her partner.

A surprising number of electors recall voting for candidates who were not standing in the electorate they voted in! Neither Gillard, nor Rudd are favoured by the electorate at large. The electorate seems just as disaffected by Abbot. Interesting times…

brc said @ February 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm

And of course, the nominated leader has to win their ‘seat’ before they can become PM – in practice, they all come from ‘safe’ seats which never change hands, but it has happened a couple of times in history.

The Git notes that the new leader of the opposition in Queensland is having to stand for election in an unsafe seat because none of his colleagues in safe seats were willing to give up their incumbency. It will be quite a laugh if the Coalition gain the majority of votes, but their leader fails to win his seat! Winning it seems to be a big ask at this stage.

L. said @ February 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Australian Labor will lose the election, because Gillard will win the leadership spill on Monday morning, 10:30 AEST.

My belief is that you are correct that if an election were held at this juncture, then the “government” would lose. They would lose regardless of whether the parliamentary leader is Rudd, or Gillard. Old adage: no party ever wins an election, ruling parties lose them.

For those wondering why I put the scare quotes around government in my previous post:
The government of Australia is currently Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Australia. She governs through her representative, the Governor General. If, as seems increasingly likely, the Queen’s Australian parliament refuses to perform the duties required of them by the Australian Constitution, then it behoves the electors to know what their powers are under that Constitution. I will illustrate with an example:
Let’s say that we the electors decide to do something for schizophrenics (and just coincidentally The Git who is a nicotine addict). If a majority of electors inform their representative in parliament that it is their WILL that a bill to repeal the tobacco tax be introduced to parliament then the representative is bound by the constitution to do so. Should the representative refuse to do so, then the electors can request that the Governor General remove the representative from parliament and call a bye election to find a replacement. If the GG refuses, then we can request the Queen of Australia do so as she is also bound by the Australian Constitution to implement the WILL of the electors.
There used to be a very well written, short booklet written by a Queensland senator called “Your Will” IIRC. Sadly, the person who borrowed it, lost it. If anyone reading this has a copy they could lend, copy or sell I would really like to read it once more.

Pompous Git: I think this may be what you are looking for: http://www.ourconstitution.org/your_will.php?pid=1

all political parties in Australia – LEFT, RIGHT, GREEN – have, as policy, a CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME.
Labor (equivalent to US Democrats) also has a CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, which begins in July of this year; it will be imposed on the so-called top 500 polluting industries.
Part of the taxes raised will seemingly go to the UN (never mentioned by politicians or MSM).
Part will go to what are defined as “trade-exposed” industries and politically ordained “renewable” industries, and part will go to compensate aged and other pensioners. low-income families etc., who will be hardest hit by the rising electricity bills (already up considerably due to renewable energy obligations) and all the other associated rises in goods and services, caused by the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX.
the Liberal Coalition (US Republicans) has pledged to repeal the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX (if possible) if they win the next National election, but they have not even spoken about their own policy for a CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, which still stands.
it is possible to argue that to have an EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, without the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, would be an even worse outcome for many, many Australians.
as with the UK, the Australian voter is CAGW-screwed whatever politician or political party is in power and, sadly, the MSM is still spinning that getting up a Carbon Tax/Emissions Trading Scheme is somehow vital for political survival, even tho the public want none of it. go figure.

“all political parties in Australia – LEFT, RIGHT, GREEN – have, as policy, a CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME”
Agreed, however… I firmly believe that the LIB’s only have one as window dressing or “bet hedging”. I fully expect that should they get in, their version would either:
A.. Not see the light of day due to it being the wrong time (GFC Mk.2 being the excuse),
or
B.. Implemented in a much watered down capacity. Just enough to be technically implemented, but by and large “token” in effect.

Alex Heyworth said @ February 24, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Pompous Git: I think this may be what you are looking for: http://www.ourconstitution.org/your_will.php?pid=1

Oh bless you kind sir! Yer blood’s worth bottlin’. 🙂

Think of the the Liberals as being equivalent to the left-wing of the US Democrats.
US Republicans would be seen as fit only for the loony bin.
But I don’t like any of the Australian parties, and yet voting is compulsory.

Sorry, my auto corrector changed Kay to May, even though I changed it back again, so I thought.

RoHa says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:51 pm
“Think of the the Liberals as being equivalent to the left-wing of the US Democrats.”
Wha -???
IMO it goes roughly from left to right:
Greens
Australian Labor
US Democrats
Australian Liberals
Australian Nationals
US Republicans
“But I don’t like any of the Australian parties, and yet voting is compulsory.”
IMO compulsory voting is a good thing. Sure it means that a lot of sheeple go out and vote without thinking too hard, but at least at the end of the day the winner can claim a mandate and campaigners don’t have to waste time and resources just getting people out to vote. I don’t think being able to win a close election based on your ability to bus people to polling stations is such a great thing. And (for example) I don’t think any US President in recent times has been able to claim they have the direct (as in voted for them) support of more than – what – 25%? of the population.

Those of you who believe that the ALP is communist, socialist, or left-wing should bear in mind that the party has long been dominated by its right wing faction. The largest unions are on the right, so effectively the right runs the Labor Party. The Right appoints nearly all top party officials and dominates the committees that have the most power. The most powerful right-wing unions are:
AWU: Australian Workers’ Union
NUW: National Union of Workers
SDA: Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association
TWU: Transport Workers’ Union.
While dominant, the right lack the numbers to roll both left and centre-left, hence Gillard’s appointment as a sop to those factions. Things tend to become a little complicated which is why I earlier pointed to the Political Compass. Understanding that it’s 2D rather than 1D helps a lot.

Pompous Git said:
Let’s say that we the electors decide to do something for schizophrenics (and just coincidentally The Git who is a nicotine addict). If a majority of electors inform their representative in parliament that it is their WILL that a bill to repeal the tobacco tax be introduced to parliament then the representative is bound by the constitution to do so. Should the representative refuse to do so, then the electors can request that the Governor General remove the representative from parliament and call a bye election to find a replacement. If the GG refuses, then we can request the Queen of Australia do so as she is also bound by the Australian Constitution to implement the WILL of the electors.
—————————————————————-
This is utter bunkum. Don’t leave your day job to be a constitutional lawyer.
On the contrary, trying to force a Member of Parliament to do something against their will is contempt of Parliament, and could land you in jail.

Isn’t it wonderful how politicians can spin even their own history!
When the global warming alarmism was at it’s height, Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal and dead set alarmist) was the leader of the opposition when Rudd was in power. He crossed the floor to support the government on an ETS but it failed to get through a couple of times. This gave Rudd the trigger for a double dissolution election which he declined to take. Turnbull is an ex banker and is supposed to be fairly smart but little evidence exists to prove it. He is intensely unpopular outside his own seat and the Liberal polling was dismal (comes from having a silver spoon stuck up….well you know how that ends).
Rudd was a popular prime minister but disliked by powerful factions within his own party. Down to tin tacks, those who saw the AGW scam for what it was had no choice because the policies were more or less the same on both sides (alarmist) so the popular Rudd was polling well. A power spill in the Liberal party saw Tony Abbot (a known skeptic) take over as leader of the opposition where he sits today. With his rise, skeptics now had a champion and a choice and Rudds popularity started to decline rapidly.
Labor pollies in their weird little green/red worlds saw this as a result of the failure of Rudd to get his ETS up and when Rudd dropped the ETS, he lost the green support and his polling plummeted giving the factions ammo to pull a leadership coup which Gillard won. These facts are not the way the alarmist green/red/Labor party want to see things so they choose to ignore them at their peril.
Prediction: Gillard to win by much less than she would like in a very close vote, Labor will be in opposition for another 10 years. Having said that, I have been known to be wrong about these things occasionally.

Dale said @ February 25, 2012 at 3:54 am

Thanks to the Git and Alex Heyworth!
That link on “Our Will” is a very eye-opening read! I knew that if you got enough people in your electorate you could make your member vote a certain way. But I had no idea we could petition direct to the Queen/GG.
So how many letters to the GG saying “Our will is for an immediate full election of both Houses” or “rescind the carbon tax” is required before she needs to act? Is there a certain percentage of voters needed?

It’s not the number of letters, but the number of electors that counts. Read the document that Alex presented. We, the electors, have far more power than our elected want us to know. The Git has much admiration for Clark, Hare and others that bequeathed us this power.

johanna said @ February 25, 2012 at 1:51 am

This is utter bunkum.

Try reading the document that Alex so kindly provided.the link to. Hint: The Git has been asked to edit a book on constitutional law written by a constitutional law. He is not making this stuff up!

E.M.Smith said @ February 25, 2012 at 5:36 am
A number of wise words of the sort the git has come to expect from E. M. He is a very clear thinker 🙂

Jeff says:
February 24, 2012 at 10:10 am
The only place greens belong is in a salad….
Jeff…I would vomit on your salad.

Oooh this is too good! I’ve got the popcorn and beer ready, this is going to be a brawl. Wahoo!

This discussion of constitutional law is a discussion of which paragragh to use from the bundle of papers. When both houses of Parliament were dissolved by the Sir John Kerr, the Australian people were handed Malcom Fraser and John Howard, the slide away from rational government continued from the racism of Land Rights, the amazing retrospectivity of the “Bottom of the Harbour”, the four pillars which allows Australian banks to lend even now at over %7 to business, through to a carbon tax with a goods and service tax stuck on top of it.
To have a logical discussion about how to resolve a symptom when the cause is in my opinion a disconnect with the knowledge and aspirations of the people the politicians purport to represent is amusing, but there needs to be an understanding that this disconnect exists.
For instance, do the people of the US know our candidates election campaigns are funded from the public purse after a certain portion of the vote has been achieved. There isn’t any ‘shrimp on the barbie’ style fund-raising and I have been unable to find a public notice of any such event. The candidates are party apparatchiks annointed by political parties, often to seats they have little if any connection with.
In other words we are arguing here about the operation of a democracy where it exists in name only. Australia is a one party state and operates, complete with useless windmills in the true Orwellian Animal Farm tradition. If you think the demise of Rudd, Gillard or the labor version of politics will bring renaissance, just listen to the debate of the carbon tax from both sides of the trough.

The Pompous Git, I sincerely apologise for any suggestion that you should be confused with the odious Peter Gleick. I will certainly use your full nom de plume in future, if the occasion arises.
Three quick points:
– The book was in the Parliamentary Library because it was written by a former MP. Any book by a current or former MP, no matter how deluded, is routinely included the the PL collection.
– I made no reference to whether particular letters would or would not receive a reply. Individual Ministers have individual policies on this. The (Liberal) Minister I worked longest for at least acknowledged all letters except abusive or obscene ones. I have worked for ALP Ministers who rarely even acknowledged, let alone responded to, letters from members of the public.
– While you are right to say that there are differing legal opinions on many issues, over a long period every single piece of legal advice, from different lawyers in different agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, all said the same thing about this. It simply isn’t true in any way, shape or form.

johanna said @ February 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

The Pompous Git, I sincerely apologise for any suggestion that you should be confused with the odious Peter Gleick. I will certainly use your full nom de plume in future, if the occasion arises.

Don’t worry about it too much; just don’t call me late for dinner 😉

– While you are right to say that there are differing legal opinions on many issues, over a long period every single piece of legal advice, from different lawyers in different agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, all said the same thing about this. It simply isn’t true in any way, shape or form.

You seem to be saying here that our elected representatives cannot be held to account for their actions except at a future election. If that be the case, then I suspect the situation here in Southern Tasmania could become very ugly. A tree arriving at Ta Ann’s veneer mill the other day had been spanked. Luckily no-one was hurt. One tree faller (who for obvious reasons remains anonymous) commenced cutting a face in a tree occupied by a tree sitter who unsurprisingly got down from the tree rather rapidly.
The prime culprits in the minds of those losing their livelihood are the Greens aided and abetted by the Parliamentary Labor Party — in particular Lara Giddings. The Greens have indicated that the next industry they want to destroy is our relatively new aquaculture industry. If there is no remedy such as Chresby suggests, then I’m afraid that direct action may ensue.

I haven’t gone through all the preceding posts and i may be repeating some. The Australian
Labor Party was founded by labour unions and was originally a socialist party; that policy has long gone, but the unions still exercise great influence, mainly by controlling the the preselection process which determines who gets selected to the “safe” seats. The unions have left and right factions, however they usually sort out their differences in back room deals. Gillard has union support, Rudd has little or none. Many labor MPs are former union leaders.
Still awake? The Greens party are a disparate group; some partially reformed communists and some genuine environmentalists but all definitely very left wing.
The Liberal Party’s membership comprises small L liberals and conservatives, some influenced by the teachings of the Catholic church. The National Party, who together with the Liberals form the Coalition, are non-city based conservatives influenced by agricultural matters. Cheers from soggy Sydney.

WOW, great comments!!!
Thanks brc, E.M.Smith, and The Pompous Git for the insights.

Myrrh said @ February 26, 2012 at 11:15 am

Pompous Git – for interest some background – http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
Do you have Common Law as the Law?

We do, but and it’s a big one, there are differences. Wikibloodypedia has an excellent introductory on this:

All of the States and territories of Australia that are self-governing are separate jurisdictions, and have their own system of courts and parliaments. The systems of laws in each state are influential on each other, but not binding. Laws passed by the Parliament of Australia apply to the whole of Australia.
The organized system of law and government now in force in Australia is historically dependent for its legal validity on a series of British statutes, notably including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian continent as a territorial possession of the British Crown. Although the laws of the Australian colonies differed from the UK in many respects from the beginnings of settlement, the underlying patterns of thought reflect the common law tradition as received from Britain.

[emphasis mine]
Since the Australian Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, it is subject to possible repeal by that body. While this is unlikely in the extreme, it was a concern to those of us johanna refers to as “conspiracy theorists”. Consequently, the High Court handed down the somewhat bizarre decision that Australia is a sovereign state internally, but not externally. However, we seem to be drifting very OT here.
Thanks for the link. Very familiar territory, but an interesting website to point people at for a backgrounder.