Skip to content

Consider the lilies.


If you read my blog, you probably get the feeling that my thinking paths are not what most would consider normal. Firstly, I wish to thank you for that lovely compliment.

Secondly, I would like to take you onto a merry little dance of what ifs, what aints, what wills, and what maybes.

In a year when we are seeing the rising tide of gambling in our society as it webs out of the TABs and the clubs and pubs and into our mobile devices, both parties are taking great gambles.

The government is gambling on the fact that once all the details of their plan hit the light of day, it will be a proposal most would be hard pressed to fault.

The opposition is gambling on the fact that the government does not get its way. Hopefully before it has a plan that they will be hard pressed to fault.

As the roulette wheel begins to spin and all players are placing bets, I would like to be your host for a little while and take a good look at the bets as they lay.

The government is hedging its bets. It has money being placed not only on its own numbers, but a few side bets as well.

The opposition seem to want to have a dollar each way. Yes climate change is real, but what will cutting emissions do anyway? And yes, we are committed to cutting emissions.

Yesterday a new bet was made by Tony Abbott. Plebiscite he calleth. An interesting side bet indeed.

You see as the bet was made and the balance of power senators approached, one thing seemed clear. The senators were all for a plan to hold a plebiscite on a plan that has been introduced to the upper house.

Of course to do that, it has to pass the lower house first. Further, the question cant be something like ‘do you support the lying bitch’. No doubt Tony thinks these restrictions unaustralian nanny state impositions.

He wanted to basically tip the table and force the house to return all bets and start again, not actually debate the policies! 

Enter compromise.

What if the ALP decide to back the idea of a plebiscite on the issue AFTER their legislation is introduced through the lower house? That is the ALP tell the L/NP we will see your bet and raise you. But only if the bill passes the lower house.

Then the government will acquiesce and hold a plebiscite and both parties will cross fingers. Not that they need to as the decision wont be binding anyway.

Still, if the plebiscite is close either way, the government can still push ahead. And no doubt the opposition can continue to call for it to be rescinded and we would be exactly where we are now, but out of pocket by tens of millions or so.

The L/NP will no doubt attempt to push that the answer to the plebiscite has to be ‘NO’, not because of the policy itself, but because the PM said we wont have one.  But will find it harder to push that line as the PM is now asking the people to decide albeit a little late.

It may even become a side by side examination of both parties policies. That is what you will get if you vote yes and what you would get if you vote no. Imagine that! Real debate on real policy differences instead of who has the better hairstyle!

Not sure the coalition are prepared for that scrutiny. But again the entire thrust of their plebiscite is to push for it BEFORE the government gets its policy ready.

Still. I don’t see how the coalition can argue that you one should vote no because ‘she lied’. Which seems to be where they want to go without arguing and debating the governments policy.

Further I don’t see how either side can dismiss the other sides policy without debating those policies. Sticking fingers in your ears and saying she lied aint going to cut it.

What are the alternatives to the government plan? Do I vote NO out of spite or vote NO because their policy is bad? And is their policy bad?

Is the government policy like the broadband debate with the ALP proposing a top of the line plan and the coalition proposing a shonky el cheapo that wont make it out of the lot?

These are all interesting things that will arise from a lead up to a plebiscite.

And if the coalition cant sell their plan they may lose it strictly based on what is a better plan for the nation.

If the ALP cant sell their plan, then the coalition will indeed get a big free kick.

However. I would like to point out one thing. And this has nothing to do with hypotheticals.

You see, while Tony Abbott and the coalition can claim that the people never got a chance to decide on a carbon tax, they DID decide on if they wanted a Direct Action approach or not.

And the coalition did not win that one.

Still. They want to take a gamble. Here is some advice for all players.


A. Ghebranious 2011 (All Rights Reserved)

  1. Jennifer Baratta permalink

    well your sane as the rest of us

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Cross And Lillies House

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: