"What is the real purpose of the opposition and why don't they do it?"

Good question. Objectively, I'd say the reason you don't hear much in the way of Opposition policies is because any bad idea they come up with will be shot and hung out on a fence like a wild dog, while good ideas will be quietly subsumed into Government policy and rebadged as always having been part of the Government's agenda. As oppositions lose both ways in this scenario, they tend to stay schtum because it's the least bad option.

The real cause of the problem is the unbalanced nature of the Parliament and the way the Government has all the resources while Oppositions have very little. But a further Catch-22 is that if oppositions come out and admit as much too often, they can become forever associated with weakness, thus compounding their time in opposition.

The fact is that oppositions are out in the wilderness as long as electors decide to leave them there. What policies they come up with are only one part of getting back into power. Getting back into power is their real aim and it's a complex balancing act from their point of view.

'In this case the people of Australia specifically voted for the govt to address AGW. '

OMG.

OMG.

Is this the level of lefty self-delusion?

I don't recall that referendum?

'mandate'. Utter tosh. The only mandate that holds true would be for a single issue party. Of course such a party would never get elected.

People vote for the least worst 'raft of measures'. Some issues are 'specifically voted' for, the rest are lumped in with them (job lot). Nobody counts on an issue by issue basis, so to say anything like what pontificator claims is deluded.

Such a lack of understanding of the westminster system.

H
So true we do choose between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. You really should read all the comment and consider the context if not previous stated views of the author.

I agree the system is comprehensively dysfunctional. We (the greater electorate) votes on personalities. I've often said the last Liberal Government wasn't simply John(what was his name?), it was the entire party....sadly that's the system. No where, no how, would I say it's a good one. On a good day it's adequate.

Notwithstanding how else do we distinguish between voted for policies and flights of ideological fantasy? For that matter, how else do we judge when a party has broken its 'election promises'? What do we do, according to you, platform policy/issues don't matter and the only way to set policy is a referendum.

Given Referendums require HUGE majority in context that elections are won on lost on usually less than 8%. Did I mention the HUGE expense and the HUGE impracticality of it.

Oh yes, they pertain to constitutional matters. AGW rewrites the constitution how? Perhaps you should think a little deeper before writing?

BTW AGW was a key issue at the last election

Define a 'key issue' and describe how it is legitimately measured to obtain a 'mandate'.

Are we running the country on mandates from opinion or exit polls, or just the ones the lefties designate as 'That one was important, and that's what the voters were really voting for', to maintain their delusions.

H,
It was a major platform policy. That's the way it works accept the party accept the list of policy is it correct ideal etc? (sigh) Reread my posts.

Ok now what's your view of the real purpose of the opposition? then explain why it's so good...that was the topic remember that? (obfuscatious attacks are so tedious and pointless they make the questioner look silly and closed minded.

The prime purpose of opposition is to return to power.

It focus is primarily to clearly show the values it stands for and to demonstrate that the ruling parties policies are failing.

The ruling party having the ability to influence events needs to draw up a detailed plan and implement it. The opposition cannot do this, as the plan would rapidly become outdated as the ruling party changes the political landscape.

What the opposition is clear on is that it is opposed to the ETS proposed by Labor. The split is between those that feel that there is an opportunity to influence the format of the ETS for the better, or those that would prefer to see no ETS.

Public opinion seems to be in favour of delaying the ETS until after Copenhagen.

Labor had climate change as part of its agenda, but never had any specifics.

I am also in favour of a ETS in some form, but agree that it should wait until after Copenhagen, as I see no benefit in ramming though legistation that might be out of date in a few months. The moral authority reason is BS.