The Mandate Theory (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

But Mr Andrews stoutly defended the unflagged increase. "I'm not a great believer in the mandate theory of politics, never have been," Mr Andrews said.

"I believe that the responsibility of the Government is to look at the situation we've currently got, look at the way in which we can bring about a better economic future for the country ... and act responsibly to make whatever changes the Government believes in. I think the whole mandate theory is totally overblown."

Source: Stay out of IR row, churches told


The issue of the Coalition's 'mandate' has been raised before (see this thread), but there isn't much point in bumping a thread that died over 6 months ago, even though one could quite easily say that the 1 July thread carried on where the other left off.

Basically, what are your thoughts on this comment from a senior Coalition Government minister?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Comments by Australian politics textbook writer, Graham Maddox, on the mandate issue:

The party that wins office is said to have won a grant of authority from the people to carry its program into legislation. The theory holds good in broad outline only. People do not necessarily believe that when they vote for a party they are approving in detail everything that the party has proposed to do. As we know, they often vote because of their own family traditions, or because of a sense of identity with one or other party, or because they like one of the party leaders or support one of the local candidates. Governments that claim explicit authorisation for every detail of their policies against questions from the opposition or members of the public certainly press the theory to hard.

- Australian Democracy In Theory & In Practice, Maddox

This makes sense to me and I am sceptical of the mandate theory. It is interesting, as Asqy mentioned, that after the 1998 election Howard emphasised his mandate to implement the GST. Yet now we see the same government trying to have the cake and eat it too, by arguing against the mandate theory in order to advance their legislative agenda. Although it is not Howard himself making these claims (he would be attacked obviously), it is the same government and makes it look inconsistent.

Even if there is a mandate, the Coalition did not run its election proposals on IR reforms anyway.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

For the most part I found the two texts fairly unbiased and neutral, but yeh they do have their little scruples thrown in now and again and you get a hint into the writers' positions

...is that really anti-mathmite?

 

[ohne]

For the most part I found the two texts fairly unbiased and neutral, but yeh they do have their little scruples thrown in now and again and you get a hint into the writers' positions

...is that really anti-mathmite?

I found the two texts for power and democracy fairly good, I didn't notice any distict bias one way or another. Still, that wasn't a good enough reason to pay $100 or whatever as they had them in the library

 

[leetom]

The people who elect a party cannot be totally absolved of blame. The people have a responsibility to inform themselves of the policies put forward by all parties during an election campaign and vote accordingly. In Australia, this is not a difficult thing to do.

An observation of the Labor campaign in 2004 reveales Labor's suggestion that should the Howard Government be re-elected, Australia would be subjected to lies and misinformation on a national government level. To backup this claim, Labor pointed out something, at least according to Labor, of a historical patten of Howard's Liberal Party- a pattern of standard misinformation and sometimes blatant lying. You can probably remember the '27 lies' that Labor used as examples, with the GST and the whole children overboard affair being the centrepieces.

What's more is that Howard and the Liberal Party did nothing to refute these Labor claims, possibly hinting at an underhanded Liberal PR policy- that of purposely making an effort to withhold or distort the truth.

Labor was quite vocal about the alleged lying of the Howard Government. Quite simply, the Labor message was 're-elect this government, and you will be lied too' as well as the Labor specific truth in government . On voting night, this message would have been ringing strong in the heads of the people. Yet despite it the people chose to elect the Howard Government once more.

As it turns out, that particular aspect of the Labor campaign in 2004, despite all of its' bombast and sweeping accusations, now appears to have some truth to it. Examples include Abbot's about-face on Medicare and the current IR reforms. Despite not mentioning these two massive issues in the re-election campaign in 2004, the Howard Government is not in total blame. The people knew this could well occur should they re-elect Howard, Labor told them so, so should some Australian be doing it tough funding health expenses or out in the cold as a result of the implementation of the IR reforms- and they voted Liberal last year- than may they live with the consequences of their decision.

If the people were prepared to knowingly invest so much power in the Howard Government, when full knowing that Howard could well turn his back on them, then the people hardly have a claim to spit the dummy now.

I doubt the Liberals will adhere to any 'mandate ethics'. Constitutionally, they don't have too. They have the will of the people.

 

[Xayma]

An observation of the Labor campaign in 2004 reveales Labor's suggestion that should the Howard Government be re-elected, Australia would be subjected to lies and misinformation on a national government level. To backup this claim, Labor pointed out something, at least according to Labor, of a historical patten of Howard's Liberal Party- a pattern of standard misinformation and sometimes blatant lying. You can probably remember the '27 lies' that Labor used as examples, with the GST and the whole children overboard affair being the centrepieces.

The GST shouldn't have been used and it might have had more credential. Howard went into an election with GST as the centrepiece it wasn't as if he snuck it in halfway through a parliamentary period.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The conservatives in my tute in first year accused one of the books of bias. The felt that the particular book painted conservatives in a negative light.

I was fairly impressed with Rolfe, as in you see his leftism ('cultural elite side') but he makes a good attempt at being unbiased and scrutinising both sides.

Although he still hasn't given me my essay back after I re-submitted it....

 

[townie]

i want to marry u Generator.

as i've said in some other thread, cant memba which one, a "mandate" IMHO is very limited. i will admit the howard government has a "mandate" to push through with the CENTREPIECES of it's election campaign, but even that is limited by the fact that very few people predicted government control of the senate, it was unexpected to most (but not all), thus one could argue that a government never has any more mandate than the power to force a bill to be voted upon by the senate. the liberals never outlined IR changes in their election campaign, whilst the well informed voter would be aware of the liberals desire for IR reform, they would not have known the details except perhaps unfair dismissal law changes for SMALL businesses (it has turned out to apply to medium sized busineeses as well).

the fact is, i dont believe that any government can claim a true, unequivical mandate, the most one could get is an expectation that certain legislation can and will be passed, something only possible if people are well awara a party could gain complete legislative control.

i would also like to comment that the liberals do not have a mandate anyway if u want to call wat they have a mandate, the coaltion does, i argue that the nationals now hold the balance of power in the senate.

/my 2 cents

 

[ohne]

I was fairly impressed with Rolfe, as in you see his leftism ('cultural elite side') but he makes a good attempt at being unbiased and scrutinising both sides.

Although he still hasn't given me my essay back after I re-submitted it....

Yeah, I don't have mine back either. How did you go on your first mark?

I was impressed with Rolfe too. He seemed to decribe himself in lectures and tutes a couple of times as a "chardonnay socialist", although I didn't find him biased either way. I can't say I'm entirely sure if he is left or right.

 

[ohne]

He looooooooooves calling himself that

He also has an interesting array of vests and skivvies.

hehe...I liked the vest with the cartoon characters on it