The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How can Australian governments be held accountable for economic policy? > Comments

How can Australian governments be held accountable for economic policy? : Comments

By Winton Bates, published 15/7/2016

An amendment to the Constitution to enable joint-sittings to resolve deadlocks without double dissolution elections seems to me to be the best option available.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Well you would say that now that the double dissolution has failed!? And largely as a consequence of conservatives undermining the Authority of their elected leader. Who at lest understands that elections and the people's' mandate are won in the middle rather than the far right.

If folks want to practice there religion or indeed try to ram it down the throats of others, parliament is just not the place to do it, but rather some largely powerless antiquated religious organisation! Lettuce spray.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 15 July 2016 9:53:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proper accountability depends on people knowing the truth: Australia is a sovereign currency issuer that never borrows in foreign currency. Bondholders have a 100% chance of getting their money back (despite what incompetent credit ratings agencies may say) and the IMF will never hold any power over us, nor be of any use to us.

And as for the spending that the senate blocked, it only accounted for a small part of the deficit. We're now in the part of the economic cycle where deficits are unavoidable, but that means more spending would be desirable anyway.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 15 July 2016 10:06:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.

Conservatives did not undermine Turnbull. Turnbull himself and his leftist cronies were the problem. Turnbulls's 'popularity' rode on the back of polls in which people, who were never going to vote for the Coalition, said he was a jolly good fellow because he was far to the left of Abbott, whom they hated. Turnbull, his admirers thought, would give them a Labor-lite government, but they still couldn't bring themselves to vote for the Coalition. How could they? They were rusted on socialist, climate and gay marriage advocates to whom it would be anethma to vote for a conservative government. Turnbull, the unmitigated fool and incompetent, and the 54 leftists of the Coalition who installed him, fell for the polls, and the rest is history. Those voters who turned away from the Coalition voted for parties other than Labor, whose vote was the second lowest ever.

People like you just do not get it. Australians of left, right and centre want clear cut differences between parties. Turnbull and the wet 54 have effectively taken choice away from voters by moving to the left. That they have just managed that by a small margin shows that the situation will not be tolerated by voters and, whether Turnbull and his fellow conspirators against democracy (merely to win an election) struggle through the next three years or not, there is a clear message that their kind will not be tolerated again. It's a pity we will have to see Australian sink further economically and socially until the rats are exterminated.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 15 July 2016 11:51:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is worth remembering that Senate obstruction has been around for a long time. In the early 1990s Paul Keating made some famous remarks bringing into question whether the practice was consistent with democratic principles. It was a problem for the Howard government in introducing the GST, but revenue was flowing strongly enough at the time to enable potential losers to be over-compensated.
The problem is greater now because current and future governments are confronted with the need to make unpopular spending cuts and/ or tax increases.
Posted by Winton Bates, Friday, 15 July 2016 4:37:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A major problem with the author's joint-sitting suggestion is it would further propagate the problem of Senators of Tasmania having disproportionate power by over-representing the small Tasmanian-state "electorate".

MORE DETAILED

Noting each State has 12 Senators (no matter the population disparities - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_states_and_territories_of_Australia ) and each Territory only 2 Senators.

It would propagate the historical anachronism of 12 Senators of tiny population states (meaning mainly TASMANIA)

undue influence compared to highly populated states (especially NSW and VIC)

and Territories, which are under-represented by Senators (only 2 each in ACT).
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 July 2016 7:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, if your assessment is indeed accurate ttbn, then Cory ought to immediately split from the (unworkable) coalition taking the Abbott clique with him! and given an early election and ample funding from folks with your shared disposition? Contest the next election as far to the right of Malcolm and his 54 wets as they please!

And stand tall and square for what they believe in? Vastly reduced social welfare, massively reduced corporate taxation, a repeal of the new super and capital gains changes; and just reversing any move toward Gay marriage rights.

Then with the "correct" policy settings in place, take their case and policy paradigms to the people and in every seat!

If you're right they ought to romp in and win a majority in both houses in their own right? However, within the limits of possibility! I'll put my house on a result that sees them fail dismally in both houses? You?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 16 July 2016 9:15:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy