I believe that the re-introduction of the alcopops tax (and it is a tax, with nothing to do with health, as Roxon claims)is very poor form. If it is a ploy for a double dissolution, the Government might just get a surprise if it swinga an early election. Rudd is popular only because he is a populatist and has been able to hide his ineptitude behind cash hand outs. Nothing he promised has appeared. The 75,000 jobs he was going to create have, instead, turned into many jobs lost, and many more to come.

Rudd is popular only when he is compared with Turnbull - and who likes Turnbull?

The Opposition must - if it is not to be seen as totally stupid - oppose the alcopops tax grab again. Apart from trying to get around the democratic right and responsiblity of the Senate to do its job, the Government is being grossly irresponsible on this one, and it deserves to be punished.

I dispute the argument that alcopop drinkers will simply move on to spirits. Alcopops aren't popular because of the taste; they're popular because they're heavily marketed at a particular demographic with the association that alcopops are a cool and elegant "lifestyle" drink which marks the consumer out as a classier person than the drunk who chugs down mixed spirits.

I think it's more likely that alcopoppers will move on to wine and beer, which don't disguise the alcohol content with sugar, and thus will prevent outcomes like the epidemic of teenage pregnancy afflicting the UK, which has been tied directly to the popularity of alcopops.

mikk states: "TRTL wrote
"isn't it a bit rich to simply ignore the will of parliament?"

You mean the will of one unrepresentative independent dont you?"

No, I mean parliament, meaning that unrepresentative independent plus the opposition, and ultimately a majority of our elected politicians (though yes, fielding isn't really a representative given his minority vote).

Our parliamentary system is about a majority which in this case, came through. Regardless of which law is being debated, the onus is on Labor to change this legislation significantly or give up on it.

They lost this one. Thems is the breaks this time. They can't whinge and whine and go for a double dissolution each time they lose by a slim margin.

It worries me to be agreeing with Leigh. Labor needs to be punished, though hopefully not punished enough for the opposition to take government.

As for Turnbull, frankly, he's the best of the bunch in the opposition.

TRTL, we set our democracy up so that the two houses of parliament would be equal and in the event of a dispute arising between them that cannot be negotiatied, the government has the option of asking the people to adjudicate via a double dissolution.

That's what they are potentially doing in this case. I don't see how you can take exception to that. Most governments have a few bills that they put away for a double dissolution. Howard certainly had his.

What's undemocratic about letting the people choose?

I will admit that double dissolution elections tend to get fought on alternate issues to the ones on which they are called, but then that is often the case for elections which are often called a bit early on spurious grounds.

If this government went for an election on the alcopops tax I think that would be a pretty good indication that they think the economy is going to get worse, not better. These days, with minor party candidates, a double dissolution election is also less likely to give them a majority in the senate than it used to. They'd realise that and wouldn't really welcome one.

You'd actually give Fielding a better chance of getting up again in a double dissolution than you would in a normal election. Xenophon would probably be able to drag another one over the line with him. The quota for a senate spot will be only 7.69% of the vote. Heck Pauline Hanson would have a chance if she could get One Nation to give her preferences in Queensland!

"It worries me to be agreeing with Leigh."

If it is so terrible, TRT, don't agree with me. It doesn't worry me one way or the other

Ah, leigh, I've missed your ascerbic.... ascerbicness (yeah, I know this isn't a word).

I see what you're saying Graham, but I take a bit less of a casual attitude toward calling early elections on shaky grounds. You said that elections are often called early on spurious grounds.

I agree totally, but I guess it really ticks me off when they're called early without a decent reason.

I'll settle for a decent reason (even if it's not the real reason) but not something which is evidently a facade (Bligh's early election, being a prime example).

The idea of a double dissolution being called over alcopops tax seems a bit rich. Yes, the government can call a double dissolution - but I'm of the view that such exercises should always be the last resort, thus, if the government really is so dedicated to this alcopops tax, it should be tinkered with.

The independents may indeed have an improved chance, as you say, but it seems clear to me that the government is more interested in preserving its skin against a potentially damaging economic storm, even if that means taking a few extra independents along for the ride.