What is a mandate Mr Abbott?
Now, contrary to popular opinion, the “mandate” that I’m referring to, is not what Chrissy Pyne and James Ashby engaged in, in Peter Slippers office while Slipper was out.
And it isn’t the type of “mandate” that Mal Brough had with Clive Palmer, when he asked Palmer to finance Ashby’s spurious legal case against Slipper.
It is the type of “mandate” that Abbott refers to when he says he will have a mandate to implement his policy program:
- Scrapping the carbon price.
- Stopping the Boats.
- Stopping the waste.
- Implementing his Ludicrous PPL scheme.
Etc etc etc…
It’s the same type of “mandate” that Kevin Rudd had in 2007 for implementing his ETS, that was subsequently ignored by Tony Abbott.
So what makes any “mandate” that Tony Abbott might have, if elected, any better, or stronger, or more binding than the “mandate” that the ALP has had in the past, that Tony Abbott felt, quite comfortable ignoring?
So what is a mandate?
In real terms, a mandate is simply the numbers that can be mustered on the floor of parliament, to support a piece of legislation.
The truth is that if the LNP or the ALP win government with 51% of the vote, there is still 49% of voters who voted against their respective policies.
So with 51% of the vote, can any party claim an absolute mandate?
Many, including Abbott would argue NO (unless it’s his “mandate”, then he would argue absolutely yes!).
Will the greens recognise Abbott’s “mandate” if he is elected, even though they will most likely get less than 12% of the vote?
And the answer is a resounding NO. And they will argue that they have a responsibility to represent those that voted for them.
So what will we face in any possible Abbott government?
Well despite his insistence that he will scrap the carbon “tax”, he will NOT get it through the senate.
Despite his claim that he will implement his PPL scheme, it is almost certain that he will not get it through, as many on his own side have said they will cross the floor, and the greens will almost definitely demand some amendment, if it gets to the senate.
Despite his claims that he will fix and build the economy, the reality is that he will not fix it cos it ain’t broke, and he will never build the economy by putting a minimum of 12,000 people directly out of work, while completely ignoring the fact that for every 1 public servant that is sacked, there are another 4 associated jobs that are affected. What that means is that as many 60,000 jobs could be lost as a result of the 12,000 that he has told us about.
Abbott has already flagged the very real possibility of a double dissolution, if he doesn’t get his way, and the cost of another election will be just as damaging to our economy, as his policies.
- So do we want a DD?
- Do we wan’t a government that demands that other parties recognise their mandate, when they have never recognised anyone else’s?
- Can we trust Tony Abbott, not to have a hidden agenda?
- Do we really want a government that will be potentially, much more dysfunctional, than it has been claimed this current government has been, and ending up with a DD?
I believe that the answer to all these questions is NO!
I also believe that the only mandate that Tony abbott should be planning for, is the one with his mate Mal Brough, in the exercise yard of Her Majesty’s correction facility, after they have both been convicted for their crimes.
Mal Brough for his part (alluded to by Justice Rares) in stealing extracts from Peter Slipper’s diary, and trying to bring down a duly elected government, and Tony Abbott for lying to the AEC over his slush fund and being instrumental in having Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge falsely charged and gaoled, amongst other things. 😀
So the question is;
“What mandate Mr Abbott?”