NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 37 of 37 < 1 2 ... 35 36 37
Topic Options
#882452 - 10/09/2010 15:53 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Helen]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
I know where you are coming from guys, and my quotes were there to challenge what I feel is a firmly entrenched, prejudiced and also very generalised view. Statistics would tell us that there'll be a few pollies there for the money, some for self gain, some both. I've also spoken to a few elected members in local, state and federal politics and I came away feeling that these people genuinely care for their electorates. Actually, I think few could really argue that Bob Katter is there purely for personal gain, I think he genuinely cares about his electorate which shows in the way he approached the hung parliament scenario. Oakshott, well that's another matter, certainly some articles today reflect that he aspires to greater things so whether his decision was the best for his electorate or himself is a matter for debate.

I've read the story a few times now and every time I read it, something different sticks out which I end up nodding my head to. At first when I read the story I really thought it was giving the country people a really hiding, but now I'm of the opinion that in a backhanded kind of way, it is really trying to push a message that I myself have picked up after going out west many times. People out in the country don't want hand outs, you can see that in the way they stare down adversity, they just want a fair go. I think few would disagree with the following quote from the same article:

Quote:
Land use regulation, such as that associated with native vegetation, is the most onerous. The risk is that the government, pandering to the Greens, will make those regulations even more burdensome and then, to appease the independents, will throw yet more handouts the bush's way.

Those handouts are a poisoned chalice. Locking the bush into a culture of welfare dependency, and transforming country towns into economic ghettos without sustainable sources of wealth, will merely ensure large parts of regional and remote Australia die, leaving only pockets of economic and social viability.

Whether that is in the bush's interest is questionable; it is demeaning to a history that shows enormous capacity to innovate and adapt. And it is not in the best interests of the nation as a whole.


Whilst the article isn't exactly pretty in its content, upon reflection I think it is reasonably fair and even handed. I know people in city, regional and rural areas that exhibit the traits eluded to in the story. We've been active in our local rural area for over 20 years now and I would only say that it is in the last five years we've finally been able to break down some barriers and gain a little respect. Actually, if you want to scare them, tell them you are selling, nothing makes them cringe more than making them think they could be getting new city slicker neighbours!

Top
#882461 - 10/09/2010 16:25 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Andy Double U]
Helen Offline
Moderator

Registered: 07/11/2001
Posts: 9678
Loc: Mid North, SA
It's all cool Andy. Didn't think for a single moment that you were having a go at anyone. smile

This piece from The Age had me giggling down to my tippy-toes: Conroy's Net Filter Still Alive and Kicking.

Talk about flogging a dead horse!!!
_________________________
2019 YTD - 0.0mm Yearly Average - 403mm
Jan - - (10mm) / Feb - - (10mm) / Mar - - (15mm) / Apr - - (31mm)
May - - (46mm) / June - - (51mm) / July - - (59mm) / Aug - - (54mm)
Sept - - (48mm) / Oct - - (38mm) / Nov - - (23mm) / Dec - - (18mm)




Top
#882466 - 10/09/2010 16:42 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Helen]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
Really?! I thought that filter was dead and buried? They'd have to be nuts to resurrect it, especially after saying it was gone prior to the election. Even that data retention program sounds a bit sus where every single website address visited by a user on an ISP will be recorded. I can see ISPs with a room full of hard drives just logging user activity... Wonder how long they'd have to maintain the records for? And what use is an address unless it has some cached data to go with it?

It's getting a bit beyond the joke really... cry

Top
#882529 - 11/09/2010 06:19 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Andy Double U]
bigwilly Offline
Weatherzone Mod and Photog

Registered: 25/09/2002
Posts: 6543
Loc: Junee - just north of the 'Bid...
So the news of Okshott's decision to decline the ministry hasn't really seemed to have raised its head here, interesting!

Might challenge quite a few strongly held beliefs about the man, not that that would stymie discussion, would it? wink
_________________________
YTD Rainfall = 281.0mm (Avg to March 117.0mm)
MTD rainfall March = 34.7mm(Avg 41.3mm)
February 2011 total = 203.9mm (Avg 37.8mm)
2010 Rainfall: 759.3mm (Annual Avg: 521.5mm)

Top
#882538 - 11/09/2010 08:31 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: bigwilly]
ant Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2002
Posts: 9063
Loc: Overlooking ACT at 848m
Heh. Well it's put a stop to some of those pronouncements, not sure you'd call it discussion.

You know, it does say a lot. A Minister gets much higher pay, plus a much bigger office, more staff, amazing super, they get power, a place in the history books.

And yet, Oakshott has refused it, I figure because then he would be an independant, and an independant is what his electorate voted for. Good on him.

Top
#882718 - 12/09/2010 14:32 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: ant]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 19046
Loc: The Beach.
I agree. Good on him. It had a fair amount to do with family commitments as well as sentiment in his electorate. The emotions in his electorate will blow away with time if he performs well. Several politicians in the past have done the same at state level and found that after initial resentment from their supporters they eventually come around.
_________________________


Top
#882880 - 13/09/2010 14:20 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: ColdFront]
ant Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2002
Posts: 9063
Loc: Overlooking ACT at 848m
I reckon Peter Fitzsimmons has said it perfectly in a big piece in the SMH today:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/bitter-whine-a-case-of-sour-grapes-20100911-155vo.html?skin=text-only

Starts with:
"MEMO to the Coalition and their carpet-biting-mad supporters: get a grip! We had an election. On a two-party preferred basis it was close – 50-50 close. In the horse-trading that followed, Julia Gillard appears to have traded a tad better and was able to form a government with the support of the Greens and independents. This was not: corrupt; an abrogation of the duty of the independents to support the choices of the denizens of talkback; a gaping wound on the otherwise pristine face of democracy. It is simply the way of the Westminster system. As to the carry-on over who got more votes, Kim Beazley won 51 per cent of the popular vote in 1998 and still didn't form a government. Were the same people screaming now, screaming then?"

Top
#882882 - 13/09/2010 14:23 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: ant]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 19046
Loc: The Beach.
Nice find Ant and yes an interesting point on Beazley.

I still can't get over the transformation in Abbott since election night. He was certain he would get into power despite the closeness of the polls.
_________________________


Top
#882901 - 13/09/2010 15:45 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Andy Double U]
StormTiggy Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 11/09/2010
Posts: 98
Good old Julia!
_________________________
I Luv The Weatherzone Forums!

Top
#883438 - 15/09/2010 17:06 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: bigwilly]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: bigwilly
So the news of Okshott's decision to decline the ministry hasn't really seemed to have raised its head here, interesting!



oakeshott-makes-play-for-speakers-job

I suspected that Oakeshott really wanted the Speaker's job. And hence why he was so intent on pushing pairings etc (see my previous post here)

As speaker he gets' more than a Minister, and I suspect that (from what he mentioned in one of his interviews) there will be a push to make the position of speaker more like that in thr UK where his seat is uncontsted - so he gets a free ride into the next parliament. Be interesting to see if this does happen.

And if one of the independets decides to support the coallition, then as a consequence of the new agreement WRT pairings, the Speaker WILL have the casting vote. And if it's Oakeshott, I will bet he will not pay any heed to the standing convention where the speakers casting vote will be to maintain status quo...

I suggest that there may be a challenge to this under section 40 of the Constitution. Or at least there should be!


Edited by Arnost (15/09/2010 17:07)
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#883571 - 16/09/2010 15:52 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Arnost]
ant Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2002
Posts: 9063
Loc: Overlooking ACT at 848m
I think what Oakshott wants to do is overly ambitious, it changes things too much.

Rather funny, when he and Windsor were doing their announcement the other week, and Oakshott was raving on for hours, Fitzsimmons reckons Tracey Grimshaw was tweeting rude and surprisingly funny things... "Dear PM, Please don't make Rob Oakeshott Speaker. He may take it literally." She followed it up a few minutes later with "Just ducked out to read War and Peace. Has Oakeshott announced yet?".

Not bad! And somewhat prescient, too.

Top
#883584 - 16/09/2010 16:53 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: ant]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
The PM thinks Oakeshott has all the qualifications necessary. Subject to the outcome of legal clarification I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the job. Presumably he's familiar with Standing Orders given his relatively short time in the House.

Top
#883736 - 17/09/2010 16:30 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Keith]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 19046
Loc: The Beach.
I wonder if Bishop has anything else to add?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/17/3015006.htm

....and this appears to be little more than sour grapes to me.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/17/3014682.htm
_________________________


Top
#883815 - 17/09/2010 22:56 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: ColdFront]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
I wonder if Bishop has anything else to add?


Well if you insist... I do. On two party preferred seat by seat distribution, the Coallition won 76 seats to Labor's 74.

Results in Lyne: Coalition 61.94% / Labor 38.06%
Results in Kennedy: Coalition 62.45% / Labor 37.55%
Results in New England: Coalition 66.8% / Labor 33.2%

And in case there was any doubt, Results in O'Connor: Coalition 73.0% / Labor 23.0%

And as to "little more that sour grapes": I will give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that you are basing that opinion on ignorance rather than intentional disrespect for the Contitution. Eh? So I'll try again...

Section 40 of the constitution says:
Quote:
Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote.


It has long been the practice under all Westminster systms that confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker, but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognised. He takes no part in debate either in the House or in committee. He votes only when the voices are equal, and then only in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question. House or Representatives Practice, 3rd edition, p.179, quoting May’s Parliamentary Practice (21st edition, 1996), p.181 (May's, first published in 1844, is the standard reference for practice in the House of Commons in the UK)

And this is exactly the way in practice that this woks here... and further why is the impartiality of the Speaker so ABSOLUTELY critical?

The speaker has enormous power. he/she can kick a member out just before an important division. Think about the ramifications of this where the speaker is believed to be partisan!

These are the long standing conventions that enable trust in the parliamentary systems. And ultimately, the convention for Speakers in Westminster systems when having a "casting" vote, is to vote in accord with Denison's Rule where when exercising his/her "casting vote", the Speaker should vote in favour of the status quo - i.e. always defeating any motions for change...

What Oakeshott wants is so in conflict with the spirit of the Wesminster concept of the Speaker, that it's frankly, well, I'm lost for polite words - just unbelievable.

Here he is with Waleed Ali yesterday: Audio and Transctript on this blog site

Look... The Libs have said that as per "the agreement" they are happy (in the interest of a stabler parliament) to pair out speakers provided that they come from them main parties - for example see here: linky. Indulging the whims and giving a double vote to a spoiled brat like Oakeshott is, I suspect, not the intent under which anyone entered the agreement.



Edited by Arnost (17/09/2010 22:58)
Edit Reason: bits and bats
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#883817 - 17/09/2010 23:16 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Arnost]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 19046
Loc: The Beach.
Originally Posted By: Arnost
[Quote] And as to "little more that sour grapes": I will give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that you are basing that opinion on ignorance rather than intentional disrespect for the Contitution.


Actually it refers to the way Abbott has transformed since election night and showed his former self. His beaming attitude on the campaign trail is nowhere to be seen. It's pretty obvious to more than just me.

Abbott's attitiude to Oakeshott as speaker would be totally different had he been on hos side come selection time and we both know it.

Quote from news article incase it was missed.

The Australian Electoral Commission says after preferences Labor has 50.12 per cent of the vote compared to the Coalition's 49.88 per cent.

Labor has a lead of 30,490 votes.

_________________________


Top
#883822 - 17/09/2010 23:53 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: ColdFront]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Abbott tried everything to get the indies support. So what...? So did Gillard. The indies know that Gillard's more desperate to stay for the duration. Coz I would suggest that if the Coallition had Treasury, the a few holes in Labor' coatings would be found. LOL.

But I hark back to what I was saying from the outset. Windsor and Oakshott are poison for the Coallition and they were on a guaranteed hiding to nothing by playing their games. By not compromisinh his principles is how Abbott got to where he did. By compromising them, he lost government. There's a good lesson there by the way.

Let me elaborate, if Abbott was firm and simply told the indies, these are my policies
so chose between them and Labor's, then Gillard would likely not needed to have been as generous to top any offer. A low offer would result in underdelivery of pork to their electorates and thus a prbable electoral loss next time round. A good reason to go with Abbott. A bidding war as actually eventuates means that there will be a massive overdelivery of Pork assuming promisses are honoured.

So Abbott has changed since election night. He compromised his principles. And I have criticized him for that.

Rorscach said... Even in the race of Armageddon - never compromise.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#883823 - 17/09/2010 23:59 Re: Australian Federal Election 2010 [Re: Arnost]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
I can' edit from the phone properly... It is of course Rorschach wink and face not race
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
Page 37 of 37 < 1 2 ... 35 36 37


Who's Online
1 registered (weatherhobbiest), 44 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
JEFF.H., LaLa, Matt Pearce, Squirel2000, TJK1974, Traveller Steveo, Watcher@Tmba
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529242 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image