Last edited:
Liberals - policies may cause a recession??
- Thread starter sash
- Start date
She has said she will on put forward the bill if the libs are allowed a conscience vote.
You don't travel too much outside Australia?,go to any bus stop in any city and watch the faces that go into the line to get on the bus,most will be looking into the mobile or fast track multi music or have a blank look on their faces,it was not always like that..Stone Age
Modern Australia.
Hyperbole is a funny thing.
Errrmmm... further proof that Australia is not going back to the stone age.
Unless the iRock shuffle was a major technological invention of the stone age. And I don't think the ALP was in any way associated with Apple in producing this technology.
What you describe is common across the world. Go to any city in the world, particularly developed nations, and you will see this. It may be different, but it is in no way uniquely Australian, not a result of Labor party politics.
Well that makes a but more sense.
Certainly wasn't like that in the stone age....?
The timing is interesting... just before the budget???
You are correct that both the lower house and upper house did not support the bill. I guess my point is that the bill could have passed if enough Labor MPs supported it. They didn't. So less than two years ago, it wasn't time to support marriage equality but now it is?
"Marriage equality's time has well and truly come,'' Ms Plibersek said on Tuesday. ''This issue should be above party politics.''
Shouldn't be above party politics but wasn't when Labor was in a minority government. It's not like the vote was close. No, it was not close at all.
Ideo,just one simple question is your business bulletproff or something that can be done for 75% less then your rate??0s??,knowledge is a remarkable power when one thinks of the past if you are narrating backwards,but when one may tunnel into our future ..
If you read the link you will see that she is attempting to reach a consensus to make this a bi-partisan push. I would imagine she is doing a lot of work behind the scenes to gauge members intentions if allowed a conscience vote. Some new members are ambivalent and have stated they would go back to the electorate for guidance on which way they would vote.
Also Ms Plibersek is looking for a Liberal co-sponsor for the bill.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rriage-bill-20140225-33ea3.html#ixzz2uOAdR2Ih
Sanj,,in a free country one can think as they will ,but if you have any free time between your business day look up a simple name"Yogi-Berra" and his simple one line quote--.
"it is tough to make predictions,especially about our future"..
No, it wouldn't. Labor had 72 of 150 lower house seats, and less than 50% of the senate.
absolutely but what does any of that have to do with your claim of australia being in the stone age and then justifying that claim?
Sorry, I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.
No. My business is not bulletproof. Not at all. We are struggling like nearly everyone in this industry at the moment.
But I don't know what that has to do with either the stone age or people using iphones.
Help me out here. I know you have an important point to make. I'm just not seeing it.
The stone age is how the lack of understanding in the game of
Political Chess,one could have several multi screen-stream data 24-7
live in the cycles on risk taking in our ecomony and every other
Countries in the world and the current in Spain and other places that I watch and look for a single rare event that sometimes become repetition
that everyone thought was nonrepeatable..
The cards that Labor play now target how many?..
Or maybe look at the word "Senate" it is a Latin word but in simple "Arabic" terms it means ruling elite.
Let's look at the numbers. Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, four short of the requirement for majority government. Four crossbench MPs, Greens Adam Bandt and independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor allowed Labor to form government.
The bill required 76 votes in the House of Representatives to be supported.
Adam Bandt voted yes.
Andrew Wilkie voted yes.
Robert Oakeshott voted yes.
Tony Windsor voted no.
"On Wednesday, just 42 MPs in the Lower House supported a private members bill put forward by Labor backbencher Stephen Jones while 98 MPs voted against."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-20/senate-votes-down-same-sex-marriage-bill/4272366
This maths is probaby wrong but 42 - 3 = 39 Labor MPs that supported marriage equality leaving 33 not supporting. It's hard to argue that Labor didn't defeat this bill. If 72 Labor MPs had supported the bill and it had failed due to a lack of support from the crossbench MPs, you could say the crossbench MPs defeated the bill.
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/marriage-equality/roll-call/how-your-representatives-voted
Out of 76 Senators, there were 31 Labor, 2 Democratic Labor, 9 Greens, 1 Independent, 28 Liberal and 5 Nationals. The bill would have required 39 'yes' votes to be supported. Labor and the Greens voting together controlled 40 votes. This would have been enough to get the bill over the line.
9 Greens and 1 Independent support the bill, already giving 10 votes. In the upper house, 29 out of 31 Labor Senators would have needed to support the bill for it to pass. However, only 16 Labor Senators supported it.
The bill was effectively defeated by Labor in the Upper House.
You could argue that in the lower house, the bill was defeated due to a lack of support by Labor and a crossbencher. However, in the upper house, the bill was defeated due to a lack of support by Labor.
26 in favour and 41 against
Maybe being on the wrong side of "55",,and traded through 3-4 downturns in several markets gives one a higher degree of resistance too the invisible pollie tricks that come with the landscape,being older is not necessarily perfect I have not one point to make only ,just look where you want to be in 12 months ..
Last edited:
I used to call it Rudd-band but I guess now it should be called fail-band.
"ALMOST $7 billion of government funds have been ploughed into the National Broadband Network to complete just 3 per cent of the rollout and NBN Co?s much-vaunted 'Gigabit Nation' service does not have a single end-user customer."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...twork/story-fn59niix-1226837728018#mm-premium
"ALMOST $7 billion of government funds have been ploughed into the National Broadband Network to complete just 3 per cent of the rollout and NBN Co?s much-vaunted 'Gigabit Nation' service does not have a single end-user customer."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...twork/story-fn59niix-1226837728018#mm-premium
Yep a lot of that expenditure was on the transit network that connects the Fibre Access Nodes to the Points of Interconnect and building the network management equipment for the Network Operations Centre.
NBNCo's original business plan forecast it would become profitable at the end of the rollout. Until then it would be loss making but the enabling legislation included provision for the sale of NBNCo after completion.
Much of the expenditure is on sale-able assets not just running costs.
I was actually more interested that "'Gigabit Nation' service does not have a single end-user customer". So much for "if you build it, they will come".
Similar threads
