Tony Abbott - Do you want him as PM? (1 Viewer)

[0bs3n3]

Look, m8, under an anarcho-capitalist regime, you'd either be in a god damn mine choking on carbon monoxide fumes, a slave or dead in a hole.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a union making sure I don't get sacked because my employer doesn't like the way I look or some other retarded reason.

Get skilled or gtfo.

 

[Lentern]

is this the same Winston Churchill that wanted to give unions full power and helped in creating the problems we have today of the modern welfare state?

also he is noted in believing that people should not oppose any decisions a government makes after it is elected and that a senate type body is wrong?


...yea......go to love Churchill.......................

You appear to suggest that two layers of government is better than one my dear Stephen. Have you been hiding your true feelings all along? What is this love that dare not speak its name?

 

[JohnMcGee]

is this the same Winston Churchill that wanted to give unions full power and helped in creating the problems we have today of the modern welfare state?

also he is noted in believing that people should not oppose any decisions a government makes after it is elected and that a senate type body is wrong?


...yea......go to love Churchill.......................

if a goverenment was elected on a platform and it went to implement that platform, one could make a very convincing case that it ought to implement that platform until the entire voting public says otherwise. i'm not sure that's what churchill meant, but it sounds like it imo. and thats something id agree with.

 

[Lauchlan]

what i can gather from that is that u refuse to acknowledge that the stimulus package doesn't work.

also apparently we shouldn't run our country on economic logic and facts we should run it purely on opinions and morals? yea...........that will work.....

have you ever noticed government skips the first step and just creates the money out of nothing?

you totally mis-construed what i said, took it out of context and tried to make one giant stereotype. go die.

 

[Lauchlan]

Yes well it was after all Winston Churchill who said economic logic is simply a contradiction in terms.

lol always finding ways to show up scuba..... its not easy since he takes his word to be law.

 

[Lauchlan]

He was just quoting the man, calm down.

thats scuba for you.

 

[Slidey]

You appear to suggest that two layers of government is better than one my dear Stephen. Have you been hiding your true feelings all along? What is this love that dare not speak its name?

It's not two layers of government, it's two layers of parliament, and the name of the second layer is quite indicative - the house of review. Its job is to ensure that the first layer isn't fucking things over.

 

[Lauchlan]

Look, m8, under an anarcho-capitalist regime, you'd either be in a god damn mine choking on carbon monoxide fumes, a slave or dead in a hole.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a union making sure I don't get sacked because my employer doesn't like the way I look or some other retarded reason.

i wonder why your employer thinks that.

 

[Lauchlan]

It's not two layers of government, it's two layers of parliament, and the name of the second layer is quite indicative - the house of review. Its job is to ensure that the first layer isn't fucking things over.

then who reviews the house of review? ect. ect.

 

[Lentern]

It's not two layers of government, it's two layers of parliament, and the name of the second layer is quite indicative - the house of review. Its job is to ensure that the first layer isn't fucking things over.

The senate was not intended to be the house of review Slidey which you would well know, twas intended to give state interests representation on federal policy. And in a democracy (like post Bjelke Petersen QLD for example) it is the voters which ensure the first layer of government doesn't fuck things over by voting them out when they do.

 

[Rothbard]

The senate was not intended to be the house of review Slidey which you would well know, twas intended to give state interests representation on federal policy. And in a democracy (like post Bjelke Petersen QLD for example) it is the voters which ensure the first layer of government doesn't fuck things over by voting them out when they do.

Giggled something fierce.

You're not bad, Lenty.

 

[Slidey]

The senate was not intended to be the house of review Slidey which you would well know, twas intended to give state interests representation on federal policy. And in a democracy (like post Bjelke Petersen QLD for example) it is the voters which ensure the first layer of government doesn't fuck things over by voting them out when they do.

I don't give a shit why it was created, I care about its role now.

You can learn more about that role from this Senate brief, which is extremely informative on the topic, and focuses primarily on the role of the Senate today as a house of review and check on government power.

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Publications - Senate Briefs

 

[Lentern]

I don't give a shit why it was created, I care about its role now.

You can learn more about that role from this Senate brief, which is extremely informative on the topic, and focuses primarily on the role of the Senate today as a house of review and check on government power.

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Publications - Senate Briefs

A hindrance to effective government more like it, a yes ministeresque layer of bureaucracy to rob the government of its ability to govern. With the exception of Senators Joyce and Xenophon it has long since ceased to serve the it was designed for and ideally should be gotten rid of.

 

[x.christina]

Yesterday, 11:59 PM
Remove user from ignore list Lauchlan
This message is hidden because Lauchlan is on your ignore list.

the best

 

[Rothbard]

A hindrance to effective government more like it, a yes ministeresque layer of bureaucracy to rob the government of its ability to govern. With the exception of Senators Joyce and Xenophon it has long since ceased to serve the it was designed for and ideally should be gotten rid of.

A Unicameral system allows extremists to hijack their 'mandate' to implement incredibly unpopular legislation.

For example, when Howard controlled both houses, it was effectively Unicameral and he went mad with power.

 

[Lentern]

A Unicameral system allows extremists to hijack their 'mandate' to implement incredibly unpopular legislation.

For example, when Howard controlled both houses, it was effectively Unicameral and he went mad with power.

How long after the introduction of workchoices did the sheer weight of public opinion see the fairness test introduced? I might add that it was not the senate that got children out of detention, it was once more a barrage of sustained criticism which saw the Howard government change what the Labor/Green/Democrat/Harradine Senate could/would not.

 

[Slidey]

A hindrance to effective government more like it, a yes ministeresque layer of bureaucracy to rob the government of its ability to govern. With the exception of Senators Joyce and Xenophon it has long since ceased to serve the it was designed for and ideally should be gotten rid of.

Oh god this is just such a sickening post.

Sometimes the government NEEDS to be robbed of it's ability to fucking "govern". Picture Rudd's term without the Senate to keep him on a leash: internet censorship all over the fucking shop.

Rudd wasn't elected by 100% of the people. He was elected by perhaps 45% at most and won from Greens preferences. In such a scenario he has no mandate, no majority, and he MUST negotiate with other parties and keep the opinions of ALL Australia's citizens in mind.

Since the Lower House clearly won't hold him to account because it's not proportional, it is up to the Senate to perform this task.

 

[BigBoyJames -]

i hope tony dies.


fucking christians.

 

[Lentern]

Oh god this is just such a sickening post.

Sometimes the government NEEDS to be robbed of it's ability to fucking "govern". Picture Rudd's term without the Senate to keep him on a leash: internet censorship all over the fucking shop.

Rudd wasn't elected by 100% of the people. He was elected by perhaps 45% at most and won from Greens preferences. In such a scenario he has no mandate, no majority, and he MUST negotiate with other parties and keep the opinions of ALL Australia's citizens in mind.

Since the Lower House clearly won't hold him to account because it's not proportional, it is up to the Senate to perform this task.

Do you really think that if the upper house was abolished that the cabinet would remain so invincible in the house of representatives? You're much too clever for that, firstly you would see government mp's far more willing to challenge the cabinet and on occasion even cross the floor and secondly you would see a much higher vote for third parties and independents.

I imagine Rudd's first term without a senate would have had a genuine mechanism in place to tackle climate change, not the watered down effluent which was in part designed by Ian bloody Macfarlane! I imagine that the government could have launched an immediate stimulus package instead of wasting valuable time wooing two unrepresentative little show ponies Senators from Victoria and South Australia. I imagine that detention debt would have been thrown out within days of the parliament sitting rather than having to wait until a coalition senator could finally be convinced to cross the floor.

 

[murphyad]

Do you really think that if the upper house was abolished that the cabinet would remain so invincible in the house of representatives? You're much too clever for that, firstly you would see government mp's far more willing to challenge the cabinet and on occasion even cross the floor and secondly you would see a much higher vote for third parties and independents.

Is that to be counted upon?

I imagine Rudd's first term without a senate would have had a genuine mechanism in place to tackle climate change, not the watered down effluent which was in part designed by Ian bloody Macfarlane! I imagine that the government could have launched an immediate stimulus package instead of wasting valuable time wooing two unrepresentative little show ponies Senators from Victoria and South Australia. I imagine that detention debt would have been thrown out within days of the parliament sitting rather than having to wait until a coalition senator could finally be convinced to cross the floor.

A unicameral parliament makes it easier to pass legislation that you like, but also legislation that you don't like.

Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it too.