Beoz

The bill itself and on its topic alone is good. There's not really an argument to suggest otherwise - or you could try Labors approach of saying it unfairly targets unions. So be it. Unions unfairly target the everyday life of average Joe.

So we go in circles. You claim there's alternative motives. We claim its being blocked because Labor and the Greens stand to loose vast amount of money if the union movement is paralysed.

Everyone has an motive. The bill on its own focusing on its own subject is the right thing to do and you know it.

Amazulu

The legislation being blocked is good legislation

The government was elected an a mandate and if they can't fulfill that then they have to go back to the people

knockoff nige

What would the greens lose? Or cross benchers? And don't forget that each representative represents voters. Voters have really no other say than what is said by the person they elect.

knockoff nige

The government were not the only officials elected. If they can't get legislation through, they need to compromise or accept defeat. Threatening seats is being a sore loser. Respect the view of the other side.

Swerv-o

No, this isn't correct - and represents the failure of democracy in the two party system. The person that is elected represents the views of their party first, and then if they are lucky, are given a conscience vote to vote how they wish in certain circumstances. In either case, the wishes of the electorate are not taken into account.

MPs don't come back to their electorate and canvas how the constituency thinks they should vote on a particular matter. Perhaps they should, but the current system is that of voting for a party - not an individual.


S

Amazulu

They are going to let the people decide

Can't get more democratic than that

knockoff nige

Well that's true and neither do government ministers. They go to election wth policies that are ready to be dumped as soon as they gain power. New policies don't get taken to the voters. So, all voters have is hope that they get represented. They get no other say. So, all there is in parliament is each individually elected politician representing (or not representing) the people who voted for them. Therefore, they need to respect the view of each politician who gets to have a say, instead of calling an ultimatum.

knockoff nige

It can. An election is not a means of accepting or rejecting each policy pitched by the candidates. They get to vote for someone and give a preference on who else they might like. If more policies and fewer individuals were put up for bidding, we'd have less of this conflict and far more progress.

Swerv-o

Part of the problem in Australia is the lack of a proper manifesto for each party that is presented at the beginning of the hustings. Instead we have a litany of vague policy releases in the run up to the election.


S

knockoff nige

Yep, it's ridiculous. 'Stop the boats' and 'scrap the tax' was as much as Abbott thought we would understand. Would anyone have voted for him if he had told us before hand that he'd be making a few 'captains calls'? That's definutely not democratic.

Beoz

You see this was Abbott's main problem. His policies were good but they way he sold them were crap. Running around saying "I stopped the boats" would be better phased "I stopped dangerous and illegal people smugglers". Either way, it was an achievement - poorly sold then and now.

knockoff nige

Yeah whatever

Amazulu

Yes, he was doing a good job

I preferred him as PM but can live with Turnbull as long has he has an increasingly right-wing agenda

Amazulu

DD is there for what is happening right now in the senate

The socialists would use it if they were in the same situation - and probably did in the past

Beoz

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you like dangerous people smuggling or you don't

Achievement