"Even in failure he may have handed the prime minister a strategy to play with later, though by specifying a plebiscite within 90 days he tried to ensure that the tax had no chance of gaining public acceptance."

Then again, Tony Abbott has forced everyone now to clearly state where they stand, so that at a later date, it will be impossible for anyone to deny what they support.

The "stunt" may have had multiple targets, of course the biased only saw one aspect, what the government told them to see.

The Independents in the coalition government, will be unable now to say they were not completely willing, since they did not support the plebiscite.

The coalition government, with the ABC firmly behind them, chant that the opposition is negative, this was a stunt and on it drones, the Albanese angle.

Yet for 11 years of conservative government the ALP voted against every single economic policy of the coalition without exception, and never once did the main stream press (or the ABC) chant they were negative, but I digress.

Now of course if the press controllers say to chant this or that, away they go .. chanting.

It "beggars belief" that Senator Fielding, a man who pulled continual parliamentary stunts, called the opposition on theirs, pot kettle etc.

Sure it was, and a good one, but for Fielding to question it, shows just where his supposed morals were overcome by personal dislike, so much for principles.

So in all, it was an interesting and clever tactic.

Did all the ALP voters who prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Coalition, did you notice how his vote fell?

Interesting eh .. those who dislike Turnbull, aka Liberal voters, are very pleased. Winners .. who do you think?

I would love to see Plebiscites become more frequent and easily available.
We might see a Plebiscite on the war in Afghanistan for instance and I think that Abbott might get a shock if there was one on the possible causes of climate change.
Bring them on.

A referendum/plebescite on policy is what Australia (let alone democracy) SHOULD be about, and I would be most happy to participate in it and vote NO. Having said that, if Australians had been taken for a ride by the propaganda and voted YES- then I would actually be fine with that too. This country IS supposed to be a democracy, but has been disturbingly light about it compared to most of the western world.
A plebescite should turn us back on track.

(cont)
Conscience votes, on the other hand, are a horrible, horrible blight on Australia; yet some morons cheer by virtue of the fact that when a conscience vote is called, party members are permitted to look out for their own personal agenda rather than the party's- which means if an abortion CV came up, Tony Abbot would vote as a religious fanatic rather than as a Liberal Party Member.

There should be a law stating that if ever a politician suggests a "Conscience vote"- an overriding policy comes into play that strips the decision from parliament entirely and actually puts it to a plebescite/referendum too.

A plebiscite "on the possible causes of climate change"

Ah yes, democracy to define science, yes that's how we should do our science in Australia.

Please select one of the following responses to the question: Climate Change is caused by
a. a trace gas, CO2
b. natural causes
c. natural causes and man made, like land clearing
d. none of the above
e. All of the above

So then the Australian public votes .. and the result is .. science?

Science in the best traditions of the totalitarian scientific community, science by consensus.

No thanks, I like my science to be factually based, not consensually.

That's just beautiful isn't it .. does anyone wonder why the public doesn't buy the average climate hysteric's reasoning?

Government action to allegedly stop anthropogenic global warming is not an issue that should be settled by a conscience vote. Any proposed action should be rigorously science-based.

The Labor Govt's pre-election promise that there would not be a carbon tax, negates any claim that it has a mandate to introduce one now. If it had any principle, the Govt would feel morally bound to have an election before a decision is taken on a carbon tax. Sadly, it has chosen to go down the amoral road, using deception and all forms of dirty tricks to con the public that one is necessary.

There is no compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming ( a term that deceptionally is labelled 'climate change' as there has been no statistically significant global temperature rise since 1998). Furthermore, the prospects for a global agreement to levy carbon taxes are slowly but surely disappearing.

The Labor/Green push for a carbon tax has no scientific nor economic justification. It is both irresponsible and irrational, being based on an ideology/propaganda/political-correctness/pseudo-science mix. Labor is going with a carbon tax to appease the economic irrationalists, the Greens. The independents who support the Govt will be held jointly responsible for bringing in a carbon tax outcome which forces major economic restructure that can only harm Australia's future prospects