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.