TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: the issue is with all the people in the Liberal party that didnt support the Yes vote, not Malcolm Turnbull, they cant agree on a position as a party and are all trying to undermine each other.

Results from NSW Labor-held electorates:

BARTON - Linda Burney 56.4% NO

BLAXLAND - Jason Clare 73.9% NO

CHIFLEY - Ed Husic 58.7% NO

FOWLER - Chris Hayes 63.7% NO

GREENWAY - Michelle Rowland 53.6% NO

McMAHON - Chris Bowen 64.9% NO

PARRAMATTA - Julie Owens 61.6% NO

WATSON - Tony Burke 69.6% NO

WERRIWA - Ann Stanley 63.7% NO

That's a very good point Bazza. When the SSM legislation is introduced will pollies vote in line with the results of the poll in each of their electorates or will they follow party lines? It's a rhetorical question as they will vote on what is best for themselves. It really reiterates my original post that pollies can't be trusted to represent the people who elected them in all cases and plebiscites like this are very useful albeit expensive.

they cant agree on a stance as a party so why do you think they would represent the views of their electorates ?
the Liberal party across Australia is divided on the issue and have undermined each other in a very public way.

which is my point....Labor and the Greens are carrying on that it should have been a simple parliamentary vote which I agree with as I don't really give a stuff about SSM either way...but how can you trust pollies to represent the wishes of their electorates when we have several Labor held seats voting No and those same pollies voting Yes in parliament? Someone earlier asked the question will Abbott be voting Yes in parliament given his electorate were in the affirmative which is a very good question....in my mind of course he should as his electorate has spoken and he is suppose to be their representative.

the point is if the Liberal party could agree on a stance we wouldn't have had to have the vote.
they are one party but they couldn't agree on this, the PM has been undermined by members of his own party on the issue and its a joke that a political party cant have unity on issues and that goes for either side.

I don't disagree MO but what we'll see now is just how representative pollies are of their electorate....for once the people have spoken on an issue instead of the pollies toeing party line. I'm sure there were Labor members who were against SSM but fell in line with the party's policy....now let's sit back and watch to see who actually represents the people who put them in parliament...the voters.

BC wrote: which is my point....Labor and the Greens are carrying on that it should have been a simple parliamentary vote which I agree with as I don't really give a stuff about SSM either way...but how can you trust pollies to represent the wishes of their electorates when we have several Labor held seats voting No and those same pollies voting Yes in parliament? Someone earlier asked the question will Abbott be voting Yes in parliament given his electorate were in the affirmative which is a very good question....in my mind of course he should as his electorate has spoken and he is suppose to be their representative.

Agree mate,

What this reveals is perhaps some of the agenda and internal info the ALP would of had coming into this, that is a huge amount of Labor voters and seats didn't support SSM, and in big numbers one ALP was 70% plus No, interesting stuff , you don't need to scratch very deep to see they wanted that hidden so as not to compromise some high profile MP.s Burke and Bowen...perhaps Gillard had it pretty much squared away when she quashed the issue and even got the chief carpenter Wongy to say SSM was no good.

yep...it'll be interesting to see what Jason Clare does given his seat in Blaxland were only 26%Yes. That is a resounding No vote and if he votes Yes to SSM legislation, will it bite him on the arse (if you'll excuse the pun) at the next election?

MarkOlsen wrote: the point is if the Liberal party could agree on a stance we wouldn't have had to have the vote.
they are one party but they couldn't agree on this, the PM has been undermined by members of his own party on the issue and its a joke that a political party cant have unity on issues and that goes for either side.

The Plebiscite went to a Party Room vote - the Pleb got up in caucus and that was the policy of the LNP took to the people at the election.

Problem with Turnbull is the left expected him to come in and be some sort of Q and A Liberal Greens style PM, and the Base of the LNP have never trusted him with core issues like Border Control , once he got in the Q and A crowd felt let down he wasn't Rudd Mark II, but he couldn't be and never would be , after the last time he got the flick due to the ETS shambles, he knew that had to respect the base and the right of the party , that would of been the deal he made to get the job over the Abbott crew.
Regardless of all that he had no hope of winning the next election from the day after the last one his polling has been crap ever since, Shorten for mine will win and win easy.

Ironically he and the LNP will deliver what in 6 years the ALP and Greens never could, - SSM , with a massive participation rate, a strong Yes which he supported all along and with legislation pushed through as quick as he can, you can only conclude this is a victory for Turnbull ( one of not many as PM).

it was a policy of the party which has not been supported by all members of the party in the campaign.

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: the point is if the Liberal party could agree on a stance we wouldn't have had to have the vote.
they are one party but they couldn't agree on this, the PM has been undermined by members of his own party on the issue and its a joke that a political party cant have unity on issues and that goes for either side.

The Plebiscite went to a Party Room vote - the Pleb got up in caucus and that was the policy of the LNP took to the people at the election.

Problem with Turnbull is the left expected him to come in and be some sort of Q and A Liberal Greens style PM, and the Base of the LNP have never trusted him with core issues like Border Control , once he got in the Q and A crowd felt let down he wasn't Rudd Mark II, but he couldn't be and never would be , after the last time he got the flick due to the ETS shambles, he knew that had to respect the base and the right of the party , that would of been the deal he made to get the job over the Abbott crew.
Regardless of all that he had no hope of winning the next election from the day after the last one his polling has been crap ever since, Shorten for mine will win and win easy.

Ironically he and the LNP will deliver what in 6 years the ALP and Greens never could, - SSM , with a massive participation rate, a strong Yes which he supported all along and with legislation pushed through as quick as he can, you can only conclude this is a victory for Turnbull ( one of not many as PM).

Bazza one has to admire your ability to do double and triple somersaults without missing a beat. Firstly, your claim that it was an outstanding success is riddled with holes. Secondly, it is non-binding and has no standing at law. Absolutely, nothing has changed until legislation is passed in both houses of parliament and is signed by the GG. That could have been done and SHOULD HAVE been done without wasting $120 million.

Implicit in your summation of the Western Sydney electorates is that they will be won by the Liberals based on their No votes. The corollary to that is that all the seats currently held by the Libs and Nats will be won by the ALP based on their Yes votes. Patent nonsense.

With respect to the ETS the Liberals went to the 2007 proposing an ETS. The ALP also went to the 2007 election proposing an ETS. So much for a government having a mandate.

Turnbull was lily-livered and got rolled by Abbott et al and was forced into the ridiculous $120 million opinion poll option. Most likely there will be a Federal election around Labor Day next year after Turnbull is forced out.

Finally perhaps in the interests of fair and balanced you can analyse some of the very Liberal electorates that voted overwhelmingly Yes?