On the Coalition's failure to govern convincingly
Peter Matters writes:
Re. "Rundle: the government's Escherian spiral to nowhere
" (Monday). All of us Australians owe Mr. Abbott some heart felt thanks. In the past, Coalition parties have always been considering that they owned the automatic right to govern as the natural state of affairs and the electorate more often than not has been going along with this concept. Mr. Abbott has finally managed to relieve us of this strange habit.
The nitty gritty of Senate voting
Martin Gordon writes:
"Rundle: c'mon everyone, let's play Senate Bingo!
" (Tuesday). A lot of the logic and labelling in this piece was somewhat simplistic or faulty. In a practical sense, the three parties of opposition are the ALP, the Greens and the Palmer United Party. They have 38 votes. For the Coalition it needs one of these parties to support any legislation for it to pass.
As for the ALP, they really only have 25 Senators, and assuming the Greens back them they only have 35 votes in all. They would also be largely beholden to Palmer too, and possibly more hamstrung. Lots of fun!
Like during the 1980’s through to 2013, the Labor government often found it could pass unpalatable budget measures because almost always the Coalition supported them. If it was in government, it would need the same formulation again.
Odd how when the ALP introduced the half-yearly excise indexation of fuel in 1983, there were no howls about it being "unfair" -- probably because it was their initiative! It is also odd it did no reactivate indexation during the 2007-2013 period either.
The shadowy world of metadata use
Tom Osborn writes:
Re. "Who can access your metadata?
" (Tuesday). I'm still wondering how phone booking of taxis know my home address without use of an illegal reverse phonebook.