Australia General Discussion

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It should also be noted that a free vote would very likely still have failed in a Liberal only vote. The fact that Abbott brought in the Nationals to ensure this shows just how insecure about his own position in the party is.

Also noting that there were a number of MPs/Senators who were not there, so the numbers would have been a LOT tighter in a Liberal-only meeting and a small margin on this kind of issue?

To me this is a bizarre moment - Abbott has deliberately kicked at least half of his front-bench in the stomach to get this short-term win with his own conservative faction, essentially to give those who might be questioning his judgement to say "yeah, we're not that keen on him buuuuut same-sex marriage will probably come if he doesn't stay".

Let's NOT forget that only a few months ago, Abbott said (correctly) that the only way to change the law, was to change the law in the Parliament. So, he doesn't have the guts to risk his own colleagues thinking for themselves AND, also remember that he promised his colleagues who most strongly oppose marriage equality that he'd use "tricky" tactics to make sure it never got to a vote.

So, let's timeline what he's said...
1. Says the SSM is an issue for the party room
2. Under pressure, suggests that people work toward a national cross-party response that the Parliament should own.
3. At the same time, telling conservative colleagues that he would never allow the Bill he encouraged to get to a vote.
4. Stacks the votes to ensure an emphatic party-room result and a) not consulting Cabinet b) not consulting senior colleagues c) picks a time when there are a number of Liberal colleagues not available.
5. Offers a Referendum (which is pointless since marriage is not a Constitutional issue) or a plebiscite, which is a multi-million dollar funded opinion poll that has no binding power on anybody.

Leadership, thy name is Tony. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ouch.

[BaconBacon96]

Ouch.

lol

Now Abbott and some others are pushing for a plebiscite sometime after the next election. Which, as Turnbull points out, is politically a bad idea. It's madness.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's arse coverage. He's becoming more strident in his opposition to try to sure up his up own position. Hence why the most conservative are saying voting shouldn't be compulsory which they think will crash turnout and skew the result their way. Even a 55/45 yes result could give enough room for a "well, this wasn't really emphatic enough" etc.

[BaconBacon96]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

[politicus]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Well sometimes you can make funny retrospective changes, like saying turnout wasn't high enough or it needed a supermajority to pass. And Abbott has nothing, if not a tin ear to public opinion so it's not like public condemnation would change his mind.

[Silent Hunter]

In other news, Vegemite sales will not be limited.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Plebiscites are very rare in Australia, the last was nearly a century ago, over conscription in WWI . Referenda are also, frankly, rare and also very difficult to pass. There have been 44 questions asked since Federation in 1901 and only 8 have passed. As it requires not only an electoral majority nation-wide, but in 4 out of 6 states as well.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Oh... it seems the person tasked with overseeing the obviously politically motivated, yet supposedly independent, Royal Commission into Trade Unions was the guest speaker at the Sir Garfield Barwick Address. The Barwick Address is a fundraising event for the NSW Liberal Party.

He withdrew this morning, the apologists are stating that he didn't know what it was, but his name's been attached to the event since April.

How utterly stupid must you be?

[Barnes]

Time for a Royal Commission into Royal Commission Corruption!

[BaconBacon96]

George Brandis was on Sky where he trashed the proposal by Morrison and others to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage.

Cabinet in-fighting is always fun.

[tpfkaw]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Well, they do have a habit of ignoring 'em in New Zealand.

[MaxQue]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Well, they do have a habit of ignoring 'em in New Zealand.

Well, it had a very biaised question, too.

[tpfkaw]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Well, they do have a habit of ignoring 'em in New Zealand.

Well, it had a very biaised question, too.

Sure, but 88% of the vote on 56% turnout is about as unambiguous as things can get, biased question or no.

[MaxQue]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Well, they do have a habit of ignoring 'em in New Zealand.

Well, it had a very biaised question, too.

Sure, but 88% of the vote on 56% turnout is about as unambiguous as things can get, biased question or no.

"Should parents be allowed to use violence on their children for corrective purposes?" would get much less votes, I'm sure you would agree.

[tpfkaw]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Well, they do have a habit of ignoring 'em in New Zealand.

Well, it had a very biaised question, too.

Sure, but 88% of the vote on 56% turnout is about as unambiguous as things can get, biased question or no.

"Should parents be allowed to use violence on their children for corrective purposes?" would get much less votes, I'm sure you would agree.

That would be a rather biased question in the other direction - "violence" implies lasting physical harm, or at least no limitations on the degree of violence.

I'm in favor of making referendum questions as clear and non-loaded as possible, so if it were up to me it probably would've been something like "Should it be legal for parents to spank their children with an open palm?"

Which I suspect would have passed with about as large a majority.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ipsos - Fairfax

Primaries
Coalition: 38% (-1)
ALP: 36% (+1)
Greens: 16% (nc)

TPP (2013 Preference flows)
Coalition: 46% (-1)
ALP: 54% (+1)

TPP (Respondent allocated)
Coalition: 44% (-3)
ALP: 56% (+3)

Satisfaction
Abbott: 35% (-1)
Shorten: 39% (+4)

Dissatisfaction
Abbott: 59% (nc)
Shorten: 49% (-6)

[morgieb]

Thank you Bronwyn Bishop.

[BaconBacon96]

Canning by-election announced for September 19.

[Barnes]

Canning by-election announced for September 19.

This should be quite a nice test of just how low the Coalition's numbers have gone.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It will be entertaining. I'd be surprised if the swing is there, but it'll be at least 6-8%

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Newspoll out for Canning

Libs up 51-49, that would be a 10.8% swing, Abbott has a 4% lead over Shorten in the seat as preferred PM (36-32).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/leadership-talk-starts-to-hit-liberals-20150816-gj0fmx

Make of this what you want

[Vega]

I think Turnbull is fairly likely to be swapped out for leader, in the case there would be such a challenge.