-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Agreeing not to block supply is not a deal. A deal normally involves a transaction that benefits both parties. But declaring not to bloke trade the Independents aren't necessarily asking for anything in return.
Now if they do start horse trading for their support that's a deal.
Now if they do start horse trading for their support that's a deal.
Baloo said:
No necessarily asking for anything in return?
These are politicians, this is parliament, in Canberra. Its politics. Politics is who gets what based upon the exercise of power. Some independents suddenly find themselves with shiploads more power than they would normally have because the major parties need their vote, and you're telling me they might just hand over their vote, and not necessarily ask for anything in return?
Am I taking crazy pills here?
tigersnake said:
Yes. :hihi
You don't seem to understand the concept of blocking supply. They are not giving anyone their vote, they are just undertaking not block supply (ie the passage of money bills related to keeping the function of government going).
antman said:
Oh I understand it. It is you who is failing to grasp what is about as fundamental a concept as you can get in politics.
Money bills require a vote antman. A. Vote. People put up their hand, and somebody counts them, most hands up wins.
Governments tend to do deals with minority parties, all over the world, and here, famously with Windsor and Oakshott, to guarantee their VOTE on supply bills. Its the real deal.
Again, what is with the 'just' undertaking...There is no 'just' about it. It is the crux of the biscuit, the chase that is cut to, the bottom line, the heart of the matter.
antman said:
? strange. To be clear, You're saying that agreeing to vote with the government on supply bills is not a political act? Just something innocuous that is out of the goodness of their heart? Yes, I agree that we disagree on that. But it is a little bit like disagreeing about what colour the sky is.
Baloo said:
The sky is not under my bed. But this debate has been pretty weird, so maybe you think it is.
Brodders was correct in thinking he was stating the obvious and uncontroversial
antman said:
8- wow 'k But its wrong. It is doing a deal. Its deal-making 101. and doing deals is politics 101
By the way, the independents would abstain from voting on supply bills rather than voting with the opposition to block supply. ie. they would do nothing.
I offer this up as information only as you seemed not to understand this in your previous post. Please let's not argue about whether this is "deal-making 101" or not.
I offer this up as information only as you seemed not to understand this in your previous post. Please let's not argue about whether this is "deal-making 101" or not.
antman said:
so they would agree to not block supply, ie do a deal. but whatever. pedantics.
it might be worth having another term of the Libs if they need support from Katter and Xenophon in the House, plus support from whatever ecletic bunch in the senate. their track record is not good when they cant bludgeon their policies thru. they probably wont be able to get many of their bad policies thru and it might be the last we see of them for a while.
Ian4 said:
might be a good thing for everyone if the far-right separated from the Libs. as bad as some of them are they are better than Hanson or some of the other far-far-right parties. and they would probably draw votes away from these parties.
also it would remove their influence from the Liberal party. the Libs would move toward the centre. and it would split their resources and their vote perhaps lessening their chance of winning gov.
antman said:
But that is not voting against the government and, in effect, allowing the bills to pass right.
But geez can we stop this nasty disagreeing gees move one FFSG.
tigersnake said:
agree. if everyone would just agree that TS and I are right we would all be a lot happier (and smarter).
This seems to be one of the many conversations I hear, and have, these days where everyone (TS and Ant) is talking past each other. The nub seems to come down to 2 things.
1. The word "deal" in the particular sense of political parties and "guaranteeing" a vote on certain, or all, matters. (The famous undoing of the Aus Dems after they "did a deal" with Howard to vote with the Gov on the G.S.T comes to mind and is, I think, the kind of "deal" Ant is talking about).
2. The nature of "supply" in Westminster type parliaments. I am far from an expert, or even a student of politics, but it seems there is a "gentelman's agreement" of sorts that any Gov should be afforded the freedom to govern. An opposition that is able to cobble together enough votes to block supply is effectively undermining "the will of the people" by stopping a democratically elected Gov from governing by nefarious means. It is seen as grubby. It's just not cricket.
In the sense of point 2. it is the responsibility of the parliament to allow a democratically elected party to govern. In this sense every parliament is comprised of people who agree not to block supply. In that sense this isn't a "deal". It is implied.
I don't want to put words in anyones mouth but am I getting close here?
1. The word "deal" in the particular sense of political parties and "guaranteeing" a vote on certain, or all, matters. (The famous undoing of the Aus Dems after they "did a deal" with Howard to vote with the Gov on the G.S.T comes to mind and is, I think, the kind of "deal" Ant is talking about).
2. The nature of "supply" in Westminster type parliaments. I am far from an expert, or even a student of politics, but it seems there is a "gentelman's agreement" of sorts that any Gov should be afforded the freedom to govern. An opposition that is able to cobble together enough votes to block supply is effectively undermining "the will of the people" by stopping a democratically elected Gov from governing by nefarious means. It is seen as grubby. It's just not cricket.
In the sense of point 2. it is the responsibility of the parliament to allow a democratically elected party to govern. In this sense every parliament is comprised of people who agree not to block supply. In that sense this isn't a "deal". It is implied.
I don't want to put words in anyones mouth but am I getting close here?