So if I have three candidates for a job position, and I don't really like either of them, I should give it to the one I dislike least, and then let the other two hang around and do their best to stuff up what the first one is doing? Way to go, Ian!

Why is it so hard for the left to accept that it's lost? Is it because of their prolonged self-indoctrination with the credo that the facts don't matter, as long as you BELIEVE hard enough? That didn't work for the Commissars, and it's not going to work here.

< In the first place only 45% voted for the Coalition, which could be interpreted as 55% not wanting their policies. >

And of that 45%, the majority voted for the Coalition because they thought they were slightly less repulsive than Labor. Maybe some of them had one or two policy positions in their minds when they voted, but most would have had none at all!

< Prime Minister Tony Abbott seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that he has a “mandate” for all the policies he went to the last federal election with. Nothing could be further from the truth. >

Absolutely, Ian!

< …we the people might have given the Liberal Party a general mandate to govern us for three years… >

All we did was kick out the former government! The current government is only in power because they were the only alternative. Hardly anyone likes them. We haven’t given them a mandate to govern us!

It is interesting that this whining article should appear on the day that it has been proved that Arafat was poisoned by polonium which strongly suggest a connection with the Israel Government and Mossad.

The author, an Israeli apologist, has never once conceded that his countrymen have made life for the Palestinians a constant horror as their sixty year occupation and blockade of the West Bank and Gaza continues.

When people point out the genocide, the war crimes, the atrocities, the humiliation that are the lot of the Palestinians, the Singer never acknowledges them. He pretends they aren't occurring.

He then accuses anyone who brings to the attention of the world, the plight of the hapless Palestinians of being Jew-Haters.

He wants them to show their addresses so that Mossad can pay them a visit or he, as a lawyer, can use the law against them, get them involved in frivolous Court cases, bleed them financially, shut them up, stop their attempts to seek justice for the long-suffering Palestinians!

I have, over years, been engaged in many issues which include opposing American Imperialism. I comment on blogs across the world and, to protect myself and my family, I use pseudonyms because I don't want some religious or political 'wacko' taking potshots at me.

I don't hate Jews but I do hate what they do to the Palestinians. I hate Jewish brutality and cruelty. I hate the fact that the Palestinians have never had a day of true freedom since 1948, that Palestinian children grow up with the sound of Israeli tanks and F16s and the harsh sound of IDF military boots echoing up and down their streets. They, classed as subhumans, live under constant Jewish/Israeli oppression.

To the Singer, these things are necessary. He is looking forward to Greater Israel coming into being, the racist Jews only State.

He hates the truth about Israel being exposed. He wants Israeli atrocities hidden. He wants to pretend they never occur.

He wants to shoot the messengers who care about the Palestinians and try to help them.

Singer is a dangerous man!

Graham, this comment was by accident posted on this thread. Would you mind removing it?

Thanks.

David.

The sheer unabashed irrationality and hypocrisy of the left wing really is their main characteristic, isn't it?

Yes it's true that the "mandate" of government is a myth.

But of course so is it when Labor's in government! Where was the author when exactly the same argument applied, even more strongly because the carbon tax not only didn't have a "mandate", was based on blatant fraud which, if done in the private sector, would have seen Gillard imprisoned for a very long time.

(Ludwig never ceases to urge large-scale government attacks on society to achieve his anti-human religion of sustainability, even though nothing in this universe is sustainable, and even though he admits it would require totalitarian power, and he admits that even then there would be no way of knowing whether government was succeeding in achieving its aims. By the way, Labor increased the population by 400,000 in the last year Ludwig, but you're still posting your hopes of sustainability on them, aren't you?)

The fact is, governments are not elected, only local members are elected. Governments are *appointed* by the viceroy. The Prime Minister is appointed, not elected. Same with all the Ministry.

There can be no mandate when any voter cannot by his vote, distinguish policies on offer that he agrees with, from those he disagrees with.

It's not just the mandate that's a myth, it's representative government. But that gives less, not more excuse for Labor's policy of the permanent rape of society by the State's armed thugs.

Jardine
What about the fact that it is always the "right" side of politics that are the biggest supporters of "law and order", increasing the number of "state armed thugs" and increasing incarceration?

It is not the left that is responsible for the "permanent rape of society by the State's armed thugs." that is all you rightards doing.
No one loves a pig more than a fat cat capitalist with lots of lucre to protect from the masses he stole it from.

The state has always protected the rich from the poor. That is what it is for. I wonder why people like jardine cant see that?

The government basically went to the election with two slogans, "axe the tax" and "stop the boats" and they were elected. I didn't vote for labour at the previous election. Some people I know did believing "there will be no carbon tax..". They really were pissed off and still are, mostly at themselves. Whilst it might not be a "mandate" it is clearly what the electorate wanted and are entitled to see these policies enacted.

Further, I would like to know where the figures of 70% to 80% in support of gay marriage and euthanasia come from. Figures that high would seem to be a fanatasy or wishful thinking. If they were really that high, one would have thought those policies would have been part of the electoral platform. They were not and I'm sure the majority of voters wouldn't give a toss about them anyway. There are far more real issues facing the country. And for the record I live with my very long standing same sex partner.

Get with it Mikk, you are sooooo 18th century.

The real growth area in "law and order" these days is with vilification and discrimination -- whole ruddy swathes of it.

And I'll give you one guess as to which side of politics is all for it?

And what makes this new type of 'law and order' all the more galling. is that under this new 'law and order' one is often guilty till one can prove oneself innocent (and your accuser gets all the free legal aid) AND, it only recognises discrimination or vilification from one angle/side.

The only way any vote can be considered a mandate is if that is the ONLY policy voted on.

As has been said before, 45% of the vote means the majority voted against it.

While I proudly voted for Abbott, and his quest to abolish this tax, I still say his parental leave policy is a shocker and I hope it gets blocked.

Yes, indeed we first elect a parliament, not a government, and the party that is able to form a government in the House must deal with the Senate. As to mandates, apparently only Conservative governments have legitimate "mandates". Opposition LNP politicians in the past have done their best to destroy Labor governments, the attacks on the Whitlam government being the most notorious example, obviously Labor didn't have a mandate in 1972.

I love it when a post starts with " the sheer unabashed hypocrisy of the left" (or right for that matter). Saves me the trouble of reading it.

JKJ,

"The sheer unabashed irrationality and hypocrisy of the left wing really is their main characteristic, isn't it?"

Talking about hypocrisy...Economist, Steven Koukoulas tweeted this info this morning:

"Hard to keep up with govt borrowing! Govt just borrowed $1.5 bill, short dated T-Notes. Gross borrowing since 9 Sep now $21.9 billion"

The Abbott govt, far from address their fictitious "budget emergency", appear to be having an absolute ball.

You could mount the 'this government doesn't really have a mandate' after most elections. It goes with our preferential voting system. If we had optional preferential voting and could prevent our vote cascading down to candidates we don't support the government of the day would have a stronger claim to a mandate.

Well now we know why people bother with Honors Degree in Philosophy.

It imparts a super ability to lie to oneself, & a really superior ability to spin to the peasants.

It probably imparts some foolish notion that you are actually succeeding in your spinning, rather than being encouraged only by the brethren.

<< If we had optional preferential voting and could prevent our vote cascading down to candidates we don't support the government of the day would have a stronger claim to a mandate. >>

Yes Candide, if we actually had a democratic voting system in federal elections in our so-called democracy, whereby the voter was free to actually vote for whoever they wished to, instead of the completely rancid compulsory preferential fundamental-violation-of-democracy-and-complete-contradiction-to-the-very-principle-of-voting system, that can make your vote count where you have no intention of it counting and can even make it count for a candidate/party that you wish to vote strongly against and which you put second last in your list of preferences… there might sometimes be a half-legitimate claim of a mandate by the elected government!!

mikk
It's about the use of force and threats. Rich people, by being rich, aren't using force or threats against anyone. Their capital makes the poor people richer, not poorer. Even back in mediaeval times people had realised the error of your the idea that one person's wealth is caused by impoverishing someone else, which is the retard economic illiteracy that underlies all the left wing and it's slave philosophy. Please admit that, if your zero-sum economic theory was correct, then mankind would never have advanced beyond the material level of our primitive or animal ancestors you dolt, because society could not have got richer, could it? That means you're wrong. Got that? Your entire theory of economics is wrong which means your political theory is irrational.

As for "the right" and their "law and order", in case you haven't noticed, the policies of the left wing of mainstream politics are not significantly different.

You've been fooled into thinking there's some significant difference between the left and the so-called right of mainstream politics, when in fact they are just two different species of socialist fascism. Your only complaint is that the "right" are not fascist enough.

The difference is that *everything the left stands for* is based on aggressive violence, unlike the so-called right, which at least has a much-forgotten and neglected concept of freedom.

The only way out of this argument is for you to affirm that all the policies of the left wing should be voluntary. But that's exactly what you fascists don't want, isn't it?

mikk
It's about the use of force and threats. Rich people, by being rich, aren't using force or threats against anyone. Their capital makes the poor people richer, not poorer. Even back in mediaeval times people had realised the error of your the idea that one person's wealth is caused by impoverishing someone else, which is the retard economic illiteracy that underlies all the left wing and it's slave philosophy. Please admit that, if your zero-sum economic theory was correct, then mankind would never have advanced beyond the material level of our primitive or animal ancestors you dolt, because society could not have got richer, could it? That means you're wrong. Got that? Your entire theory of economics is wrong which means your political theory is irrational.

As for "the right" and their "law and order", in case you haven't noticed, the policies of the left wing of mainstream politics are not significantly different.

You've been fooled into thinking there's some significant difference between the left and the so-called right of mainstream politics, when in fact they are just two different species of socialist fascism. Your only complaint is that the "right" are not fascist enough.

The difference is that *everything the left stands for* is based on aggressive violence, unlike the so-called right, which at least has a much-forgotten and neglected concept of freedom.

The only way out of this argument is for you to affirm that all the policies of the left wing should be voluntary. But that's exactly what you fascists don't want, isn't it?

If the state has always protected the rich from the poor, then why are you in favour of more power for the state you complete idiot?

so Gillard lies to the electorate, does a sleazy deal with Independants who pooped on their electorate and Ian is silent. From day one Abbott campaigns on reversing the deceitful lying tax and Ian has the nerve to claim Abbott has no mandate. Abbott is simply doing what he said he would do unlike the hypocrites who continually did what they said they would not. Being a sore loser certainly impeads ones vision.

So Jardine
If I move onto a rich mans land, to feed my family, he wont attack me and use "force" to remove me? Of course he will. You rightists are the violent ones not the left.
Your rabid ideology of "liberty" is only liberty for the haves. The have nots can get stuffed and starve to death in a ditch for all you care.
You selfish randians would be the first to call the cops if someone infringed your "property".
Bloody hypocrites.

I dont believe in a zero sum economy. That is you fantasising again.
It is your political theory that is irrational.

You dont know my political philosophy. As usual with you rightards you seem to think all lefties are the same and believe that the USSR was a success. I dont even think the USSR was communism. It was an authoritarian dictatorship. Get over your 1950s reds under the beds obsession and your anne rand elitist fantasy and maybe you will have something sensible to say.

I never said I supported the state. I dont. Neither do I support the miniature version of the authoritarian state that is a corporation, the fiefdoms and absolute rulers, the exclusion and exploitation that characterises capitalism and your "libertarianism". Especially the idiotic version advocated by mises and his fools.

A good article and a timely caution.

There is, in fact, a view that most people voted for the least worst party; in which case we cannot infer a ‘mandate’.

A more compelling argument, which should appeal to a rationalist philosopher, is that - even if there were a mandate in the sense of clear majority support for a policy, such as in a plebiscite or referendum, that would still not be a reason to support it. Once the policy is law we all have a duty to obey the law, but until then elected members, like the public, are free to oppose it. The reason is that public opinion on a moral issue is not itself a moral argument. The point is discussed in Eureka Street, Oct 10, 2013.

Max Atkinson

The reality is with a 2pp vote of 54% the liberals got a mandate to implement their promises, and to legislate according to their principles. So far they have done so.

Labor, however, had a mandate not to implement a carbon tax and in failing to keep their iron clad promise tore up their mandate to govern.

But, Shadow Minister, as a minority Government did Labor have a mandate for anything? They managed to cobble together a bare majority to hold office for three years, but it would be hard to argue they had the support of a majority of the electorate for any of their policies, which no doubt is why the unrelenting focus of the Opposition was on Julia Gillard'e pre-election statement about 'no carbon tax' rather than the ALP platform.

Poirot, perhaps we should just stop repaying labors debt.

Would that make you happy!

rehctub,

You've been rather quiet lately.

Did you catch Mr Hockey saying this:

".....we are AAA rated and we are in good shape."

http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/transcript/012-2013/

Did you catch Mr Hockey saying that "The credit rating is what matters."

Did you catch Mr Hockey raising the debt ceiling by 60-odd percent?

.....after banging on for yonks that raising debt limits wasn't on....

Do you know that Australia has the third lowest debt in the OECD?

Mr Hockey does.

He reckons we're "in good shape".

But then he always knew that didn't he....

More half-witted self-contradiction and open-ended self-entitlement from the left wing.

mikk
Thank you for displaying your complete moral and intellectual confusion.

So you don't believe in private property, and you don't believe in the state?

So how is anything to be produced? We are to starve getting the permission of everyone in the world who is an equal communal co-owner, presumably. You obviously haven't thought through your ideas at the most basic level.

The idea that private property in land is what causes starvation and hunger is simple idiocy. It's the other way around. If private property in land were abolished, thousands of millions of people would starve to death. If, according to your theory, anyone has the right to land and to enforce that right on the ground that they don't have it, then obviously nobody would ever have a right to land and you're back to your genocidal tendencies based on complete economic and ethical ignorance.

Yours is nothing but a creed of aggressive violence. By contrast, a social order based on private property is the principle of minimising aggressive violence, your failure to understand it notwithstanding.

Poirot
You're the one who thinks government presumptively represents "society", better than society represents itself, remember? You're the one who assumes people have no right to liberty and property but what the government decides to leave them, remember? You're the one who assumes that government action intrinsically and irrefutably imports social benefits, even if it can't be rationally demonstrated? (Anyone who doubts it is a "denialist", remember?) You're the one who assumes that government has the right to kill people to force them to obey remember?

Sparkq

‘I would like to know where the figures of 70% to 80% in support of gay marriage and euthanasia come from.’

Simple. Just Google 'polls euthanasia same sex marriage Australia'.

You'll find heaps of poll results that show where those figures come from.

As for why our governments remain so stubbornly opposed to enacting legislation that reflects overwhelming public opinion, my guess is that Australian governments have always taken their cues on social policy from the UK and US, not from the Australian people. As soon as either of those countries reform their euthanasia and same sex marriage laws, Australia will automatically follow.

JKJ,

You're the one denigrating "lefties" and lauding "righties".

You are the one constructing big fat strawmen - such as:

"You're the one who assumes that government has the right to kill people to force them to obey remember?"

Can't you "discuss" without hiding behind your strawman?

Regarding your line to mikk:

"Yours is nothing but a creed of aggressive violence..."

You're always banging on about so-called violence...

Yet your style is laden with insulting rhetoric and dripping with belligerence.

We take our cues from that.

Your bellicose attitude is not worth the time it takes to tap a reply, let alone the brain power to achieve it.

Bye

<< Ludwig never ceases to urge large-scale government attacks on society to achieve his anti-human religion of sustainability… >>

Haaaa hahaha Jardine.

Hope you are cumfy there in your padded cell! ( :>)

When was the last time any government had a true majority of the vote? Menzies?

If we had genuine proportional representation, they'd get even less. (the Senate doesn't count. Only 6 seats per election, regardless of a state's population? What a joke!).

Perhaps we should have policy plebiscites concurrently.
Parliament must select 2 or 3 "issues" of current concern, that both major parties are likely to campaign on.

The results of the plebiscites cannot be contradicted, even if the winning party had an opposing policy (e.g. party wants carbon tax, but plebiscite says "No."

Only 33% voted Labor, that means that 66% do not want heir policies.

Poirot I've been quiet lately because that posionus labor government has gone.

Perhaps you don't notice, or don't care to notice, but CONFIDENCE is on the increase.

I have said all along, that's what's needed, and that's what labor ruined.

I will just sit back and be entertained by the Palmer road show for a while.

It's about time we had a bit of color in our politics.

The socialists have been disputing that their opponents had a mandate ever since Lenin was their pin-up boy.

Remember the Bolshevik V Menshevik wrangle? The Bolsheviks were actually in the minority but claimed the moniker Bolshevik which meant majority.

Just like their Bolshevik buddies todays socialists will dispute anyone else could ever have a mandate. And... just like their Bolshevik buddies, they are all for silencing their opponents.A number of *the-libs-dont-have-a-mandate* brigade on this thread have in the past openly advocated that any discussion of AGW or illegal immigration should be censored.

Thanks, rehctub.

Here's an update for you.

The govt has just borrowed a further $1.0 billion, 4 years, yield 3.14%.

Total gross borrowings since 9 September is $22.9 billion.

Just sayin'....

These lefties are just so obvious aren't they, while congratulating themselves on their clever spin.

They are saying a government has no mandate, so by inference no requirement to keep their election promises.

Well sorry Ian you don't get off the hook of telling barefaced lies that easily.

What idiot came up with the strategy of resisting the repeal of the carbon tax your lot lied about? I can't see how you can not see this just keeps your lying nature foremost in peoples mind.

All you achieve is giving Abbott a bit more money to help him climb out of the hole you dug, while belting you around the head with it. Some policy!

It is now becoming obvious Gillard was smarter than you lot, not much for sure, but still smarter. I think she also topped you in being a nasty vindictive lying bitch as well, only time will tell there, but definitely not as dumb.

Here's an update,

Another Labor MP is being investigated for corruption.

SM,

We've lost count of the number of rorts attributed to members of the LNP.

And mousy MSM appears to allow these shockers to sweep each case under the carpet.

Fascinating indeed....

P,

We have lost count of the corrupt and criminal Labor MPs, from pedophilia to multi million dollar corruption.

You forgot prostituting under age girls in Wollongong, Shadow Minister. And this from the party which claims that it has a monopoly on integrity and who's supporters never fail to tell the working class how immoral we are.

Poirot
[Deleted for abuse.] I have not lauded "righties". I have only pointed out that the mandate is a myth whichever party claims it, unlike you who are blatantly partisan for the Labor party, laughably claiming to be concerned over the integrity of financial management by the Liberal party while advocating the biggest governmental fraud in the history of the world. It's you putting up straw men. You contradict yourself in everything you complain against the Liberal party.

At what stage, short of actually shooting people, do you renounce the violence in enforcing the policies you advocate?

mikk
Without private property or the state, how is the decision to be rightly made how to produce anything?

SM,

It seems we were misled by the LNP that had a deal with the Indonesians to take back asylum seekers.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indonesia-hard-line-rocks-pms-boats-plan-20131108-2x72l.html

"Mr Suyanto rammed home his country's refusal to take the asylum seekers in a text message to the ABC late on Friday. ''The Indonesian government NEVER AGREED to such wishes or policies by Australia. We have expressed this point of view since the Rudd government and there are no changes in our policy in relation to asylum seekers who want to go to Australia in the current Tony Abbott Government.'"

It's a shame when you have to rely on reports directly from foreign governments because your own government suppresses information to make themselves look good...don't you agree?

Also, can anyone here point to another country whose leader consistently flees from the media? That is, he physically "runs away".

How embarrassing...

........

JKJ,

So you're saying that I misread your inclination when you serially criticise "lefties".....It's a natural assumption that you are partisan to the right.

BTW, it's prohibited on this forum to accuse fellow posters of lying.

Retraction please.

Poirot
Stop trying to squirm out of it.

At what stage, short of actually shooting people, do you renounce the violence in enforcing the policies you advocate?

P,

Again you make the mistake of assuming that a single swallow makes a summer. The navy has already returned the occupants of 2 boats, and there was certainly a tacit understanding on which the Indonesians have backtracked. The Indonesians sent a boat that left, and could have easily picked up the illegals. As the boat simply had no power, and if the Australian boat had refused to take the illegals on board, it would have forced the Indonesians to do so.

I certainly don't think that this is the end of it.

SM,

"...and there was certainly a tacit understanding on which the Indonesians have backtracked...."

I love it how you make it up as you go along....you know that do you?

No you don't.

........
JkJ,

No retraction?

Okay.....

P,

I know you want to put your fingers in your ears and pretend that Indonesia didn't take back the illegals from 2 boats, but it is a matter of record.

Living in the labor La La land where history is constantly re written, you would like to pretend that Labor MPs are not constantly appearing before the court for corruption, that the school halls, pink batts weren't a complete stuff up, but they are and were.

Well, SM, it would be a jolly good thing if the govt would be up front with Australians instead of trying to suppress all sorts of things from us.

The reason they cloaked everything under the guise of "operational matters" was initially to cover up anything that made their "stop the boats" look inadequate.

So we're left with a situation where obviously cooperation between Indonesia and Australia is testy and no detailed information.

From the SMH article:

"At least two boatloads of asylum seekers have been returned to Indonesia after being rescued by Australian ships since the election of the Abbott government. In both cases, the boats were sinking. In Friday's case, Indonesia maintained there was no danger to life, even though the boat's engine had apparently stopped."

So were these people in Indonesia's territorial waters, in international waters, or in Australia's territorial waters?

What's the detail regarding Indonesia's willingness to accept boats according to where they are intercepted and what condition the boat is in?

We don't know because Morrison won't tell us anything.

Too clever by half.

As for the rest of your rant, I'm not going to continue with a tit for tat - plainly a pointless exercise.

Here you go,SM,

Shall we rely on the Jakarta Post once more - because our govt prefers to keep us in the dark?

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/09/ri-oz-maritime-standoff.html

"Agus Barnas, a spokesman for the Office of the Coordinating Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Minister, said the government’s policy was that Indonesia should no longer accept asylum seekers from Australia.

Out of six asylum seeker boats rescued by Australian vessels recently, Indonesia declined to receive the last three requests for transfer, which happened between September and November, Agus said.

He explained that there was no agreement with Australia on the issue. “Foreign ministers from both countries discussed the issue in Bali [today] and there has been no progress,” he told The Jakarta Post over the phone on Friday."

Of course, you may think differently...but with no "concrete" info forthcoming from Australia's govt...well?

It never fails to amuse me of just how near sighted these die hard labor supporter are.

What I mean is their constant bagging of the VERY NEW LNP governments 'stop the boats' policy, when in reallity, the only reason they (LNP) are trying to stop the boats In The first place, is due to the shear incompetence of successive labor governments that blew the boat numbers out of the water, pardon the pun.

Another issue they fail to accept, is that not only did they aid in the wasted billions, with their unconditional support for their failed party, but they also fail to recognize that the LNP has to waste yet more millions/billions, in an attempt to fix something that quite simply wasn't broken.

The best the likes of 'P' can come up with, is to remind us how much the LNP is borrowing, yet he/she fails to accept, or at least acknowledge, that labors HUGE DEBT still has to be serviced, and will continue to be for many years, if not decades to follow.

Although he/she is lost in time, at least many of the sheep have left the flock.

Time to move on 'P', you're a dying breed.

P,

Firstly, Your link confirms that Indonesia has already taken asylum seekers from Australian boats, and given the Indonesian elections and the spying allegations, it is not unreasonable to some political posturing.

Notably, this will be the first illegals to reach Aus in 3 weeks, which compared to more than a boat a day under labor shows that the coalition's plan is working whereas Labor just talks.

"it would be a jolly good thing if the govt would be up front with Australians instead of trying to suppress all sorts of things from us."

But you're the one who claims that the government intrinsically and automatically represents the people, remember? No-one has any ground for criticising the government, because our rights and liberties are whatever the government says they are, remember? But if that is wrong, then your arguments about the minimum wage, the enforcement of policy, and global warming are all wrong.

"So we're left with a situation where obviously cooperation between Indonesia and Australia is testy and no detailed information."

But according to you, the people have no right to detailed information, because the government just knows better. Otherwise, where are all the data and codes that the skeptics have been requesting unsuccessfully for years from the government-funded warmists? Hypocrite.

"So were these people in Indonesia's territorial waters, in international waters, or in Australia's territorial waters?"

According to you, you have no right to know, remember? The government's mere decision overrides any right of yours. But if it doesn't, then what is the principle by which you distinguish legitimate from illegitimate use of government power, hypocrite?

And let's just get one thing straight. You obviously agree with shooting people in order to force them to submit to funding any and every government activity against their will, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to slime out of answering it by pretending to be indignant about lying that I had lauded rightists based on your own biased assumption.

Hypocrite. All your criticisms of the government contradict your own arguments for years.

JKJ,

Your entire post consists of a little city of strawmen.

Can't you debate without making stuff up, adorning it with various enhancements and attributing it to your opponent?

You just push your auto-play button...and the same rhetoric comes out year after year.

I'm going to take the excellent advice of Tony Lavis here:

"Whether they be lonely trolls seeking attention or jerk trolls the best treatment is not to feed them: it strengthens jerks trolls and it conditions lonely trolls in the wrong way. A lonely troll who gets fed too much - especially after midnight - can turn into a jerk troll and you can't fix them after that.

Trolls feed on attention: when you sense a troll in your midst try to give it a wide berth. If it engages you personally remain silent and avoid any form of retaliation. I know it can be hard but in this case you need to do what Jesus would do and turn the other cheek. When a troll gets hungry enough it will eventually crawl away and seek sustenance on another forum."

[Deleted for abuse.]

P,

Labor is a bunch of hypocrites. None of them demand operational information from the police, yet are baying for minute by minute information on sensitive operational data.

The change in media strategy to talking when there is something worthwhile, rather than the talking heads of Juliar and Dudd that felt obliged to update us hourly on everything from the trivial to their bowel movements.

SM,

I'm truly amused by your spin...(the weird thing is that I once thought you possessed some substance:)

"....yet are baying for minute by minute information on sensitive operational data."

Oh yeah, I forgot....when in Opposition, Morrison and Co amused themselves by going around beating the boat drum and playing a dirty big tuba....but now...well now it's "sensitive operational data

"Which is code for "Don't ask me a question, coz I'm not going to give you an answer."

Shame his game of Admirals and Operations has fallen in a big heap.

Is there an Operational directive for wiping egg off ones' face?

http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/morrison_boat_theatrics_backfire_ZycQZsEOzdapeNjFHdVwCI

What an apt title, don't you think?

"Morrison's Boat Theatrics Backfire"

Can't wait to see it when they turn it into a musical.

: )

P,

It looks like it is really burning you up that the libs are having success in stopping the boats after 5 years of Labor failure.

"It is understood that, since September, 1151 asylum-seekers have been prevented from leaving Indonesia, Malaysia or Sri Lanka on 27 boats - almost double the 600-odd to arrive since the government began Operation Sovereign Borders on September 18."

P,

Yet another post of pure spin devoid of fact.

Fact 1

The illegal arrivals have dropped by roughly 90% compared to Labor's open boarder policy.

Fact 2

3 boats of illegals rescued in Indonesian waters have been returned to Indonesia in the last 2 months compared to zero under Labor's water taxi service.

All this whining from the left whingers is simply because their Labor party has been left looking supremely incompetent.

SM,

You can go on with your creative coommentary till the coes come home.

Since Morrison saw fit to veil the issue under military operational procedure, who knows what's going on?

Australians don't.

We're now forced to garner our information from a neighbouring country.

That's a first, don't you reckon?

The Jakarta Post is now our portal on this issue.

I'm also sure you'd approve of Madame Bishop's latest version of "respectful parliament".

She ruled a short time ago that it was perfectly in order for Abbott to refer to Shorten as "Electricity Bill".

Gawd, after watching the sublime Keating last night, I lament he's not there to squelch the inane and disrespectful Abbott creche.

P,

As you haven't disputed my facts, I assume that you accept them, and the conclusions that in a very short time the coalition has succeeded where labor failed.

At least I don't need to make up facts to support my opinions as you do.

As for Shorten's new title "electricity bill", it was not used by Abbott, so once again you are factually incorrect. Pyne did not address EB or his title directly, nor was any part of the term offensive, and given the vitriolic language used against Abbott and his front bench in the last parliament, Labor once again is being precious about tactics they are happy to use freely when in charge.

I have no doubt that Labor will shortly try something offensive and cry foul when slapped down.

SM,

So sorry for mistakenly attributing the "Electicity Bill" tauntto Mr Abbott when it was Christoper Pyne.

Of course, you are aware that this faux honourable lot vowed to bring a respectful watch to Parliament.

Turns out that was pure bunkum, like their vow of transparency.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/epic-fail-new-speaker-bronwyn-bishop-stumbles-at-first-hurdle-20131113-2xfnk.html

"The woman who built a reputation on her encyclopaedic knowledge of Parliament's standing orders declined to apply one of the most basic rules of decorum when Christopher Pyne set out to ridicule Labor's fledgling leader, Bill Shorten on Wednesday morning."

Although knowing how much you like to bandy about childish epithets, SM, I suppose you're sitting down taking notes for future reference.

: )

P,

I have already used the very fitting "power bill" and "electricity bill" just after Shorten announced labor's policy to keep power prices high and then fled from the media.

I think that the term Electricity Bill is more fitting, and will stick with him until he is prepared to allow the voters to get what they overwhelmingly voted for.

It also looks like Electricity bill is going to try Tea party tactics to stop the house funding.

LOl!...

Er, puhlease.....that's the pot calling the kettle "Tea Party"

(Actually, Tea party Tony has a nice ring to it, yer reckon?)

Here you go, SM

This is the type of thing this dreadful outfit (otherwise known as the Abbott govt) encapsulates.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-mother-kept-from-newborn-baby-in-brisbane-20131113-2xh5v.html#ixzz2kYa0vLev

"An asylum seeker who was moved off Nauru to give birth is being locked up for 18 hours a day in a detention centre in Brisbane while her week-old baby remains in hospital with respiratory problems.

The case of Latifa, a 31-year-old woman of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, has shocked churches and refugee advocates.

She was separated from her baby on Sunday, four days after a caesarean delivery, and has since been allowed to visit him only between 10am and 4pm in Brisbane's Mater Hospital. The boy, named Farus, has respiratory problems and needs round-the-clock medical care.

Latifa is confined to the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation, 20 minutes away, where her husband and two children, four and seven, are being held.

Latifa's husband, Niza, is not allowed to visit the child at all, according to people in daily contact with the family.

Misha Coleman, a qualified midwife and executive officer of the Churches Refugee Taskforce, said the separation of mother and child marked a worrying development in the Abbott government's hardline asylum seeker policy. ''As a midwife this is the most diabolical situation for a mother and a newborn one could imagine,'' she said."

Although, here's a turnup for the books.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-orders-scott-morrison-to-reveal-asylum-seeker-details-20131114-2xi8a.html

"The Senate has ordered Immigration Minister Scott Morrison to tell Parliament about incidents involving asylum seekers at sea in a bid to end the government's information clampdown.

A motion moved by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young was passed with Labor support on Thursday morning, demanding that Mr Morrison table reports about on-water incidents within 24 hours.

The order follows Mr Morrison's refusal during question time on Wednesday to answer a question by Labor immigration spokesman Richard Marles about the reported arrival of asylum seekers in Darwin earlier in the week.
Advertisement

The Senate order also demands that Mr Morrison table reports on all of the incidents at sea since the election."

P,

So the tail is trying to wag the dog. The greens and the senate are trying to assume powers that the senate does not have. The greens and labor can huff and puff, but Morrison can ignore them. In 30 days the greens can report him to the Lib dominated privileges committee which will squash it.

The story of an illegal immigrant that has been given free medical treatment for her child and sees her 6 hours a day during visiting hours is hardly heart wrenching.

SM,

"The story of an illegal immigrant that has been given free medical treatment for her child and sees her 6 hours a day during visiting hours is hardly heart wrenching."

(Actually it's the story of Morrison and his department separating a sick newborn baby from its mother)

However, your sentiment above sums you up nicely.

P,

My sentiment is that the story is a beat up. When my child was born, she had a fever and was taken to neonatal high for 5 days. In those 5 days we never got to spend more than 6 hours with her simply because the high care unit has strict visiting hours for a reason. We wanted to see her all the time, but did not feel that a nasty regime was tearing us apart.

If the woman never got to see her child, you might have a point, this feeble attempt at pathos is pathetic.

SM,

Yes, some of us have been there with a newborn who needed extra care.

My little fella was hooked up to drips, etc.

If someone had taken me away and locked me up away from or the vicinity, I would have been devastated.

My point is that it is certainly "not necessary" to remove this new mother from the hospital where her sick baby resides.

For you to claim: " this feeble attempt at pathos is pathetic." makes me despair at the country we're becoming.

The only thing "feeble" these days appears to be the trending sense of compassion in our society.

P,

The illegal's child is in high care, I doubt whether any mother with their child in high care neonatal gets much more more than 6 hrs contact a day. Sleeping in the hospital is out of the question, so the rest is logistics.

Again a pathetic beat up devoid of substance.

"The illegal's child is in high care...."

Thanks, SM, that's about as grotesque as it gets...I see you're following the prescribed rhetoric of Admiral Morrison.

Dehumanise them by referring to the mother of a newborn as an "illegal".

You know the interesting thing?

I'll bet that if ever the likes of you or Morrison or your ilk were ever put in a position of being a desperate refugee like this lady from Burma...I bet you'd squeal long and loud till the cows came home.

What "big men" you represent - defending the separation of a sick baby from its mother to score political points.

Poirot, so what exactly are we supposed to do with the sick baby/healthy mother situation?

Let the mother take the child away from the care it needs, or let a perfectly healthy woman use a high-demand hospital bed for weeks?

A 20 minute trip? Visits every day?
What torture! It's worse than Guantanamo Bay!

P,

More phoney histrionics?

1 - The woman is not separated from her child.

2 - She arrived in the country illegally, and as a result is being detained until her asylum status is determined.

SM,

"More phoney histrionics?"

You're a doozy, aren't you, mate.

You'd defend anything...even as common decency and principle are flung out the window by this diabolical govt.

I'm with John Hewson

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-15/asylum-seeker-baby-brisbane-hospital-rejects-scott-morrison/5093782

"On Sky News, Dr Hewson accused Mr Morrison of arrogance, saying his treatment of the woman was ridiculous.

"It's inhumanity in the extreme in my view, I mean a mother in these circumstances is normally given 24-hour access to a child in intensive care," Dr Hewson said.

"I mean for heaven's sake, you know Morrison can go make all the short-term points he likes out there but this is something I think that sends absolutely the wrong message."

Not to mention, Morrison misleading us on this:

"A spokesman for Mr Morrison yesterday said doctors at the hospital had advised that it is common for mothers not to stay overnight because of bed restrictions."

But this is what the hospital says (and what I experienced with our newborn):

"But in a statement to ABC's AM program, the Mater Hospital suggested the mother should have been allowed to visit her child whenever she wanted.

The hospital says it encourages new mothers to be involved in the baby's care wherever possible to help establish a strong bond, and does not place restrictions on visiting hours.

"Once a mum is clinically well enough to go home, she is discharged from hospital, but is encouraged to be involved in her baby's care wherever possible to help establish and strengthen her bond with her baby," the statement said.

"Mater places no restrictions on women and they can visit their baby anytime where possible."

You want to defend these standards and principles - fine.

I only hope this deplorable regime is exposed on the world stage for the evil cretins they're turning out to be.

...."An asylum seeker who was moved off Nauru to give birth is being locked up for 18 hours a day in a detention centre in Brisbane while her week-old baby remains in hospital with respiratory problems.

Yes P we should have sent her home to have her baby, but hey, why have a baby at home when they think they can become a leach feeding off the Aussie tax payer.

Well, perhaps they won't feel that way after this, hey!

After all, they are illegals!

Meanwhile, many young Aussie mums struggle with basic day to day expenses.

Charity starts at home!

Yeah, rechy,

If you and SM are examples of wise counsel and measured principle in contemporary Australia...

God help us.

Here you go, butcher.

Since you're so fond of luxuriating in others' despair and misery...

Have a roll around in this:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-policy-of-deterrence-threatening-families-20131114-2xjnr.html#ixzz2knwy8wYF

"Asylum seekers being detained on Christmas Island and off shore on Nauru and Manus Island are being subjected to a regime of coercion and intimidation and living in appalling conditions in a deliberate bid to force them to go home.

Well-placed sources working in the offshore detention system report that inadequate healthcare and, contrary to government policy, forced family separation or threats of separation, has created a toxic mix of despair and fear among the asylum population."

"Children are being used as a bargaining tool to get people to return home. In a letter received this week from an Iranian on Christmas Island, he says he has been told he will be separated from his pregnant wife two months before she gives birth. ''I have requested from the Immigration officers to discuss my situation, however, they keep telling me to go back home if you want to be next to your wife during delivering the baby,'' he writes."

"Several sources have described harrowing scenes on Christmas Island last month when Immigration officers forced two unaccompanied Sri Lankan children aged 12 and 14 on to a plane to return home. They were part of a group of 84 Tamils who had arrived on the Coco Islands after 34 days at sea and within 48 hours were put on a plane and sent back to Colombo.

''The children were crying and screaming and begging to be able to stay,'' said a witness. ''One of the security officers realised they were too young and no one was accompanying them and so took them off the plane. Then there was a stand-off while someone rang Canberra and were instructed by someone very, very senior to put them back on the plane.''"

Now that is no doubt something you can really get your jollies from.

Enjoy!

Yes P,

Your histrionics are entirely phoney. For an average new mother with other children not sleeping in the hospital, 6hrs a day would be normal.

You can dress it up however you want, but this is nothing but a beat up. If the woman had no access, then you might have a point. The 6 hrs a day robs you of any credibility.

Poirot, in response to your last post.

Firstly, the parents are the ones who placed their children at risk, we are simply trying to cope with the mess created by successive incompetent labor governments.

As for trying to deter them from coming, bring it on I say because you seem to have conveniently forgotten they are illegals.

In fact, if I had a say, given they are mainly Muslims, I would establish piggeries and pork processing plants on all these islands, as that would stop them in their tracks. Then, if any truly wanted to come, then they would have to work there for say five years before being eligible to come to Aus.

Now as for living conditions, what conditions do you think they came from and, if they were better than what they are receiving, then why did they leave.

It would just add strength to the argument that they are economic refugees, in other words illegals!

The two Tamil children were "unaccompanied".

That means they'd already been separated from their family, and apparently nobody in the group was related or willing to take on the responsibility for them.

Back in Sri Lanka, they no doubt have an extended family willing to care for them.

Is that really worse than growing up orphaned, possibly institutionalised, outsiders in an alien society?